;ill)-S:: 
 
 \J' 
 
 trt 
 
 \^ 
 
 BS 
 
 THE K TEXT OF JOSHUA 
 
 
 i! 
 
 I 
 
 M.\X L. MARGOLIS 
 
 I 
 
 
 ■^_ •- 
 
 . 
 
 Reprinted for private circulation from 
 
 The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures 
 
 Vol. XXVIII. No. I, October igii 
 
GIFT OF 
 
HTH^ 
 

 >i»>33 I'l 9« ati 
 
 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL 
 
 OF 
 
 SEMITIC LANGUAGES AND LITERATURES 
 
 (CONTINUING HEBRAICA) 
 
 Volume XXVIII OCTOBER, 1911 Number 1 
 
 THE K TEXT OF JOSHUA 
 
 By Max L.j/Margolis 
 Dropsie College 
 
 1. With the letter K is designated Codex Tischendorfianus II 
 of the Leipzig University Library which the famous discoverer of 
 the Sinaiticus brought home from his first oriental trip in 1844. It 
 consists of 22 palimpsest leaves of which 17 contain in uncial script 
 under an Arabic text biblical fragments from Numbers, Deuteronomy, 
 Joshua, and Judges. Not only were some of the leaves in a bad 
 condition, but the margins of most of them had been cut off or 
 otherwise mutilated in the process of their employment as bindings 
 for other codices. The fragments which Tischendorf assigned to 
 the seventh century at the latest were published by him in the first 
 volume of his Monmnenta sacra inedita, nova coUedio, 1855; the 
 leaves containing all that is left of the Book of Joshua are found 
 on pp. 161-70. 
 
 2. On the text of codex K Tischendorf expresses himself as 
 follows (p. xxxiii of his Introduction): "Ipse vero textus horum 
 fragmentorum admodum peculiaris et gravis est, a Vaticano quidem 
 textu satis di versus neque magis vero simillimus Alexandrino. 
 Inprimis discedit a Vaticana editione pariter atque ab Alexandrino 
 
 ' A/ 
 452195 
 

 ,•...*,.•.••• •• 
 
 2 The American Journal of Semitic Languages 
 
 codice per libros losuae et luclicum. ubi prae ceteris assentientes 
 habet Holmesii cocUces 75. 54. 118. 44. 59. 74. 76. 84. 106. 134." 
 He then gives a few instances. For e/cfj.co6a 165a, 10. he adduces 
 eKfiada 75 as the nearest reading. He overlooked eKfiaOa 54 in 
 Parsons. As for ixococrav 162a, 8, which he mentions as a singular 
 readmg, ficooaav 118 comes pretty close, not to mention /Socoaav 
 75 ^(ocoo-av 54 which, considering the well-kno^^l graphic similarit}' 
 of /3 and /* in the cursive script, are not so remote either. 
 
 3. As I am preparing for pubhcation an edition of the Greek 
 Joshua according to the text of the cursives with which Tischen- 
 dorf's uncial stands in affinity, I shall reserve for the preface to 
 that edition an account of the attention which these manuscripts 
 have thus far received, of the discovery that they constitute a 
 group, and of the conjectures concerning the recension which they 
 represent. I shall here single out only the latest contribution by 
 Ernst Hautsch (Der Lukiantext des OJdateuch, Berlin. 1910) who 
 recognizes hi the group, particularly m the smaller sub-group (54. 
 75), none other than the Lucianic recension. But whether Lucian' 
 or not, it is certainly a recension, and it is just as manifest that 
 it is not Origen's. 
 
 4. So far as the Book of Joshua goes, 59 st€ps out as a member 
 of the group in question. This is at least my impression from the 
 readings given by Parsons. The case is different in the Book of 
 Judges (see Moore's Commentary, Introduction). On the other 
 hand, Cod. Gr. 609 of the BibUotheque Nationale in Paris must be 
 included: I find it to be almost a twin-brother of 44; but 106 
 with which they are both related excels them. 
 
 5. A still further witness of the text underhing our group may 
 be found in the Old Latm of the Codex Lugdunensis. According 
 to the editor, Ulysse Robert (Heptateuchi partis posterioris versio 
 latina antiquissima, Lyon, 1900), its nearest relatives are 74, 54, 
 106, 134. My oa\ti examination, however, goes to reveal a closer 
 affinity wdth 54. 75. 118. To mention but one example, the peculiar 
 reading cKficoda adverted to by Tischendorf (see § 2) recurs in the 
 Latin in the form ecmoth which, by the way, is the more correct, 
 the final a being an error of dittography. There are also note- 
 worthy deviations. Thus it occasionally reverts in a pronounced 
 
The K Text of Joshua 3 
 
 manner to the B type so far as its groundwork is ccnicerned, and 
 some readings it shares with the Sahidic version (ef., e.g., 15: 27 
 asergarri with aaepyapei). The points of contact with 54. 75. 118 
 are, however, sufficient to warrant a collation. 
 
 6. In presenting on this occasion an edition of K ahead of my 
 forthcoming edition of the entire text (see § 3) I am guided b}' the 
 desire to take my bearings for the latter. The collation which 
 accompanies the edition of the fragments makes it clear that of 
 the group of cursives signalized l)y Tischendorf it is the smaller 
 group (54. 75. 118) with which the affinity of K is most marked 
 and among the three it is 54 that must be singled out in particular. 
 For 118 stands somewhat aside, and 75 is a curtailed text, its omis- 
 sions being not always due to errors, but obviously to a desire for 
 condensation. To be sure, 54 errs on the side of amplification 
 through the admission of matter which we may conjecture stood 
 on the margin of the archetx-pe. Just how far 54 may be followed 
 is revealed by a comparison ^dth K. It is furthermore clear that 
 the recensional character of K. 54 is obhterated in the larger group 
 (74. 76. etc.) into which matter from the cognate, yet distinct 
 recension by Origen has been achiiitted. I feel therefore that I 
 shall be justified in my future edition to make 54 the basis of my 
 text, while the variants from the other ^^■itnesses may be conven- 
 iently placed below in the apparatus. 
 
 7. I have supplied in brackets the lacunae of K which Tischen- 
 dorf, barring exceptions (1656, 1; 1696, 3, 4, 5 in part, 6-10; 170a, 
 10, 23), has refrained from doing. As the reader ^dll see, there is 
 room for grave doubt only in the fewest instances. Below the text 
 I give in three sets of Notes the variants from (1) 54. 75. 118. Old 
 Latin, (2) 84. 134. 76. 74. 106. Cod. Gr. Paris. 609. 44, (3) BA0G. 
 55. Lagarde's Greek text (the so-called Lucian), the Syrohexaplaris 
 in Lagarde's edition, Dillmann's Ethiopic (codices FH), and Ciasca's 
 Sahidic. For the uncials I have used the phototypic editions, 
 while for the cursives I possess photographs which the authorities 
 of Dropsie College have kindly secured for my use. My informa- 
 tion is thus based on first-hand sources throughout. I say this, 
 because I have discovered numerous inaccuracies in Swete's edition. 
 Maes and Drusius I quote from the Critici Sacri; occasionally there 
 
4 The American Journal of Semitic Languages 
 
 will be found readings from Swete's and Parsons' apparatus, also 
 references to Field and Eusebius (Onomastica, ed. Klostermann). 
 While in the first set of my Notes I have recorded all divergences 
 even of an orthographic character, the variants in the other two sets 
 have in the main been confined to matters that count. A textual 
 commentary accompanies the edition. 
 
 8. I use the folio-wing sigla: KB AG which require no explana- 
 tion; is the Washington manuscript edited by Sanders; r = 54; 
 = 75; s = 118; R = ros; 3L = 01d Latin; u = 84; 1 = 134; p=76; 
 t = 74; u = ulpt; f = 106; i = Cod. Gr. 609; z=44; F = fiz; A = 
 Lagarde; ^ = Syrohexaplaris ; efh=Ethiopic (codices FH) (€''- = 
 Ethiopic, codices CG, occasionally referred to); (E=Sahidic. * = 
 prima manus; ^= correction by the first or a contemporaneous 
 hand; 2 = correction by a later hand; * = textus; '"(after a codex) = 
 margo. For the hands of BA I use Swete's sigla as well as his 
 information. Further sigla and abbreviations: |^^=the Hebrew 
 text underlying the Greek version (Septuagint) ; ^^ = the He- 
 brew text read by Origen; ?^™ = the masoretic text. (© = the 
 original of the Septuagint; aV^'=Aquila, Symmachus, Theodo- 
 tion; o' = the Septuagint column of the Hexapla; ast = asteriscus. 
 In the Textual Commentary <( = from and > = leads to. Helbing 
 = Grammatik der Se^ptuaginta von Dr. Robert Helbing, Gottingen, 
 1907. 
 
 9. Postscript. Thompson's Coptic Palimpsest, Oxford, 1911, 
 reached me after the article had been set in type. As almost the 
 whole book of Joshua is contained in that publication, I have 
 collated Ciasca's fragment with Thompson's text and the remainder 
 of the latter as far as it covers the Greek text here published with 
 the apparatus in the third series of variants. I append here the 
 results of my collation (€'= Ciasca's text, C^ and from 162a, 12 C 
 = Thompson's text), leaving for the future a fuller discussion of 
 them : 
 
 161a 1-3 drop ^''^ after C | 17 -aas C^ error, the scribe had in mind 
 p. 536, 1. 31 1 22/23 yoaofjL C^ [ 161& 1 read tovtov^ C^'AG^] avrwv B\\€ : > 
 C^ I Kat = C'l Kara €'' = A® | 7 a/Sts €, initial t dropped out by haplo^raphy 
 in the Coptic text | 10 ixppiov C', see editor's note | 13 ^i<;^ C'' j 18 pa(3aa C^' 
 I 23 (f)€va€v8(i)p C^ I, 162fl 2-4 evaiovs. <j>cp(.^aiovs, lefiovaaiovs C' 1 6/7 Tors fTro 
 
The K Text of Joshua 5 
 
 rrjv eprifji.ov\>1^'^ \ 12 Xaos ttoAus cf. €, prob. iiiner-Coptic addition i! 1626 6 
 eyw is expressed in C^ 163a 1 eos post KareSttoKov, prob. inner-Coptic addition 
 
 1 4/5 fMia-epwv Bh<£] fjua.p(r€fx.(jiim.v ^ = fxja.apf.(iu) pxiv = fJiaape^xDO fxaiv j 7 Aov C 
 (but initial and final letter doubtful) corrupt ; 15 enrev C | 16 tovs] prm /cai 
 C I 10/11 (JTOfjxiTL It^ovs € 21 /?ao-tAeo)v C 'j 164a 3/4 Sg. C j 5/6 o-wera^ev] 
 + ei €■<£ I 16 is C 23/25 kul uTrwAeta (= avatpwvl) aTrwAecrev avrous (+ v(ra 
 v€vep7]v) €v (TTOfjiaTL ^L(f>ov<; ; the order, of course, may have been changed by 
 the translator 1646 7 wcrarTws]>C, prob. as in <£ accommodation to the 
 translator's idiom | 9/10 Kat— e7rotrjo-ev]>C, inner-Coptic omission tlii'ough 
 homoioteleuton 18 vaye/3 C 165a 1 apa/Sa] prm art <t j 16 )8ao-av C f 23 
 
 ao-e;;^a C 1656 2 yepyecriv C 5 yaXaaSJ optov yaXoaT C : 6 optov €■ ' 166a 
 
 7 x^'^a ^ 10 avTTjv C (paraphrased by ierram) 14 ev] prm et <!D : 16 apa;8a] 
 prm art £■ . 19, 20 ev aye/3 <!i^ i 1666 3/4 Kat tov yepyeaatov €■ ; 18 SoaySip C I 
 20 yawret G = yecret cf . <£, hence pointing to yecretp ' 22 apa^ G = C | 23 Xefiiva 
 €] -\- fSaa-iXea o^Xap. C (the sum total is XXIX) \ 24 paK-r]^ C 167a 
 
 2 <fivXr}?] + viwv G 3 p.ojvar)';] + KX-qpovopunv G ' 4 T17] + y>; G 5 Tjp-icrecrti/] 
 ■qpaau cjivXij'; puavaacrr) G 6 is] + nX-qpovop-Lav G , 8/9 ev rw Trepav tod topSavov] 
 >G 1676 3 TTtto-av G I 5 avTwv G 16 TTjv] yr]v G < 168a 22 tov] terrae G |j 
 1686 16 lepews G ? ] G missing from apx^v — opyr?. 1686 20 — 1706 1, but 
 through change of order the wds. Traarav ttjv [crwa]ywy7;v ltqX are extant at the 
 end ]| 1706 2 arros] a-xa-p G j 3 /XTj fjLovo<i G 1 14-16 o ^s 0' eortv Kut avros eo-rtv 
 KS o ^s Kat o ^s avros otSev G 
 
 I wish also to add ad § 5 end an example of a singular coincidence 
 between IL and C which both share with s, the three standing alone 
 with their peculiar text. I refer to 5, 3 where sC3L add after IrjX the 
 sentence Kai eOrjKev diixwviaf aKpo^varicov (prefaced in sC b}' the 
 phrase eK Sevrepov, also found in iz, but repeated from vs. 2), with 
 which cf. Pirke derabbi Eliezer, c. 29 ("-"- ~" niv^^n "« V-pl 
 
 rrjz:c nms). Cant, r., s.4(on4,6) (r;"z: cn-mb^- an: -rizyri) 
 
 = Eccl. r., s. 11 (on 11, 2) (nib^^'l -"Zj nniJ5 VI""-), cf. also 
 Gen. r., s. 47 (on 17, 23) with reference to Abraham (r;"Zr( '~"2V~ 
 nib":'"), and contrast Levit. r., s. 25 (on 19, 23) (n"23 S'."'- Dp"2 
 nbl"- ; cf. the commentary ri'l"- "T against HjinS niin"-). — 
 Ad § 7: p ( = 76) is a palimpsest certain leaves of which are wholly 
 or partly undecipherable, at least in the photograph; thus the evi- 
 dence from p is lacking for the bulk of the third fragment here 
 published (22:7 ff.). 
 
6 The American Journal of Semitic Languages 
 
 K 161a ^KaduTrep €7roti]ad^ 39 X 
 
 TT) XofJiVW Kai TO) 
 
 jSaaikei avT'>]<i : — 
 ^Kat eirara^ev Z? 40 
 
 6 iracrav rriv opivrj 
 
 k5. 161a 1-3 ]>o 1 KuOairep] pnn kul rs quod non dubito quin K habuerit 
 
 in ultima linea folii praeeedentis: sic IS- et sicut ante fecit dabir transponenda 
 
 sunt, ergo /cut >iL [ e-Troirjaav Krs] tiroL-qafv IL j 2 kofxva K] Ao/?va rs: Ae/xva 
 IL I 4 ^ Kr ; 5 opivr)V Kr] op-qvrjv O* (opivrjv O^) : yrjv rrjv opuvqv 1L : yr}v T7]<; 
 opeiVT)^ S I 6/7 Ktti T77V 7re8ivr?v Kat tov vorov [[votov Kr] vwtov o]] Kro] Kat ttjv 
 
 VF 161a vs. 396] >iz 1 Kadairep sine Kat uf | 2 Ao/i,m] Xo/3va uf I 4 •^ ul I 
 
 5 opLvrj] yrjv Trj<; optivrj'i UF | 6/7 /cat vaytfi Kat rr^v TreStVT^v Kat tov votov Kai 
 
 BciihAQAGS 161a 1-3 hA0AGS (absque signis) >B(it€"<^ (€ incipit a rw /3ao-tAet 
 
 aDT?7s) I 1 Kadairep A®AGS] prni Kai h | eTrotr^crav A0G(v SUperscr.)^'] cttoi- 
 >jo-e A I 2 tt; Xofxva] rrjv Xofxvav h: ttj XefSva ©AGS: tt) XejSfj-va A 4 "^ h 
 A0G I 5 Trao-ai' BhA0] prm rrjv G (sub ^ )AS>{J-^) TTjv BhA0] >A opivrj] 
 
 Textual 161a 1-3 The omission in is most probably due to homoioteleuton 
 
 ommen ary ^^j^^ preceding clause ends in Kat tw (SaaiXei avrrj?). Where namely siL 
 coincide with r in including a clause or word wanting in B, it is improbable 
 to assume that o has reverted to B. Whether the omission in B is likewise 
 due to error, it is difficult to tell. The error may just as well have occurred 
 in IB/. On the other hand it must be owned that the clause rather lags 
 in IS"". Or the omission in o (and perhaps also in B) is due to a desire for 
 condensation; iz go still further by omitting vs. 396 entire || kui Kadajrep 
 rsh = "I a;i<^1 M"" !1 €iroL7)(r€ AIL = niri'' P?"- The others assimilate the number 
 
 T T _ 
 
 to that of the verbs in vs. a 2 Xo/xva Kh< Xo^va rsuf possibly = nizb 
 (comp. 'iZ.^); or o is an error for e (in uncial script); Xep-va lL<Ae^i'a 
 ©AGS (A has both /? and p.: Ae/J/Ava) =n33b ^.'", e=^' in unaccented 
 closed sjdlable. h construes Trotttv with the accusative (see also 163a, 
 1. 14-15), hence rrjv Ao/Avav (-v Greek accusative ending), but leaves tw 
 fiaatXet '. 4-6 If the Greek translators understood their Hebrew as well as 
 the author of the masoretic accentuation (comp. EV.), they wrote: Kat €7ra- 
 
 Tu^ev IS TTua-av ttjv yiqv rrjv opuvqv kul Ttjv j'aye/3 (or Kat rov voToi\ COmp. EV. 
 
 and the South) kul r-qu ire^Lv-qv kul Trjv u(Tr]8o)6. In consequence of bad exegesis, 
 the upper point was deleted; the result was iracrav ttjv yrjv T-qv opuvrjv {terrain 
 montuosnm 11.) and still further by a change of construction Trao-av T-qv y-qv 
 T-qs opuvrjs (all except Kro). A alone with its insertion of ev arop-arL $i(j>ov<i 
 
The K Text of Joshua 7 
 
 K I6I0 Kat Ti-jV TreSivrj X 
 
 KOI rov vorov Kat 
 rrjv aai^hwd^ kul 
 rov<i ^acriXei^ av- 
 10 Tcov KUL ov Kare- 
 
 vaye/? Kai rrjv TreSivrjv \[yay€/3s] nozeb iL]]s 3L | 8 acrrjBwO Krs 3L] aaiSujO o | 9/10 
 
 [[rov] >zj] UF I 10/11 KareA(€)t7rov fi] KareXnrev UZ | 14 ^o}v]-\-ei avTwv UF | 
 
 yrjv T-qs op(e)tv77S B rell: yrjv ev (TTOfMiTi $L<f)ovs r-qv opuvqv A | 6/7 xai ttjv 
 TTtOLvi] Kai Tov voTov] KUL Tr}v I'tt^ut Kttt TTjv TTeSeti'r/i' B(£: Kat Tr)V vaye/? /cat rrjv 
 ■TreStvr^i' hA©AG* (S'" a' cr' Kat tov votov) : Kat tov At/?a Kat ttjv TreStvrjv C j 
 8 ao-rj8w(9 BhCAOG] aarj8a6 <t : acrtSw^ A: 50j-fc.] S ! rov? BhCeA0]+7ravTas 
 A et sub •:>(• GS I 9/10 avTwv h (S"' a' a' avTwv)] avrr?? BCeA©AGS | 10 Kat] 
 
 (from vs. 39 ?) between yrjv and ttjv opuvrjv shows an insight into the correct 
 meaning of the Hebrew. It is possible, however, that the bad exegesis is 
 to be charged to the account of ©; the text then underlying Kro which is 
 preserved in its integrity in 1L imphes a correction based perhaps on the 
 version from wliich voto^ was derived. In the immediate ancestor of Kro 
 namely yrjv rrfv had dropped out, either by homoioteleuton, or because yrjv 
 was miswTitten Trjv which naturally entrained the loss of ttjv. Hebrew nj5 
 was, of course, left untranslated by either version; Origen supplied, pre- 
 sumably from Aquila, Trjv sub ast; what resulted was unreadable Greek: 
 Trjv iraaav Trjv yrjv. hence the correction in A: Trjv -rraaav yrjv ' The Hebrew 
 order M^i'lTll 23:ni is preserved everywhere except in Kro. Was Kat 
 TOV votov an afterthought, i.e. an insertion from the margin which was put 
 in the WTong place? Comp. uf with their doublet. Doublets are said to 
 be characteristic of Lucian 233 was transhterated by <& as vaye/3 which 
 was corrupted in Be into vajSai. The stages are as follows : vaye^ Kat > 
 
 Fa/3ey (so 71) Kai>va^eK KaL>va^e Kai>va/3aL Kat. Kat has caused the 
 
 omission of a final k in a preceding place name quite frequently; just as on 
 the other hand ev led to the dropping out of the initial v of a name follo^\ang 
 ': AccorcUng to 5", a' a' rendered ZIC by voto^;, hence the voros in uf by the 
 side of vaye/3 and in Kro in the place thereof C apparently found \nl/ for 
 ~;C 'I nazeb 3L is a corruption from nageb ' 6 uarjSwd] written in some copies 
 uarj8w8 (spirantic pronunciation of 6 and 8) ; hence the confusion with io^^l 
 in S; the reverse occurs like-nise ' Is aarjSad <£ due to tyjv? The tendency 
 to change the plural into a singular may be witnessed elsewhere; comp. 
 yaAtAa^ 168o, 21/22. Other examples are available 9 bj in front of 
 □r;"2^"« which was wanting in the Kowrj was supplied by Origen i. 9/10 
 
8 The American Journal of Semitic Languages 
 
 K 161a XeiTTOv e^ avTco X 
 
 SiacTeaooa/xevov' 
 Kat irav evirveov 
 /cat ^(ov e^coXo- 
 15 dpevaev kul ave- 
 OeixaTLcrev ov rpo- 
 TTOV eveT€iXaTO 
 /c? d§ IrjX' : " Kai €- 41 
 
 avTwv Kro ?L] avTrj? S | 10/11 KareA(e)i7rov Ks3L] KaTeXiirev ro 13 evrrveov K] 
 €fnrv€Oi' R 14 Kut ^wvKr] ^wt/s {vitam; sequitur ef) 3L ? 14/15 e^wAo^pevo-ev K] 
 
 etoAo^pevo-ev ro: e^wAo^peucre S : t^oiXoOptvaav ^ 15/16 Kat ave^€p.aTto-ev Kr] 
 >3L I aveOefJuaTLO-ev Krs] ava^e/xario-ev O j 18 •[ K]>r j 18/19 xai CTrarafev Is 
 
 18 ^ 1 I 18/19 Kai eiraTaiiv is] kui aTrcKTCivev ai'roi^s ts uf : orvaTreKretvev aurors 
 
 >omil i 10/11 icaT£A(€)i7rov BhAG] KareAeiTrav A : KartXifiirav 11 cv avrw 
 h] avToiv B(£C: €v avTT) A0AGS (G ev — avTt] , sed ponendus est obelus ante 
 ev ut in 5) I 12 Siao-ecrwo-p.evoi' A©] o-eo-wo-p.cvoi' BhAG j 14 /cai ^ojv] ^ojtjs BC(£A 
 
 et sub — G* : ef uvtt^s A© : >h j 14/15 e^wAe^pevcrev B(f;] €^wAe^pei'o-av 
 hCAQAGS , 15/16 Katai/£^e/>iaTto-£i/]>oinn I 18li^ABrell]>C | ^A© , 18/19 
 
 avTO)v Kro3tuFh=nri("^b«) = a' «■' according to S"; ® wrote ai;Tr7s = 
 r;("-b"^). The translator saw the antecedent of the pronoun in the last 
 place name mi'^i , riqv aar)8oiO; or, if we are charitable enough, in : — xn 
 I 10 KuL KrILdf, an innocent addition, not warranted by 1?'" ; 10/11 KareAi- 
 TTov (or the vulgar form KareAtTrav A; its consort © inserts a parasitic p. in 
 front of the ir, see Helbing, 22). The singular (rouzh) = l?'" (subject 
 Joshua) [j 11 avr<Dv or €$ avrwv or ev avrrj not in ii?™. The former (avTMv or 
 ei avTo}v) would correspond to Drib (comp. 8:22), the latter to nZ (comp. 
 10:30). Probably additions due to reminiscence of the parallel passages || 
 12 BLacrtcrwafjievov OV the simplex aecrwafxevoi', an inner-Greek variant 13/14 
 In order to differentiate H-"!"" bj DXI from "l*£:n b« PJ<T <§ may 
 have written ttuv ep.7rv£ov ^ojt^s, although 11:11 where there was more cause 
 for differentiation both 'I'S; and ri-'wj are rendered indiscriminately 
 efiTTViov. Origen naturally obeUzed ^wt/s. His Greek text was therefore 
 akin to B. Kr have ttuv e/xirveov kul ^wv; perhaps a doublet, i.e. some 
 translator rendered n'2'1'; by ^wv (comp. Deut. 20:16 ow/ie viinim August, 
 for omneni spirantem 5L). hA© have simply wav efiTrveov, A©, however, 
 introduce €$ avrrys, comp. €$ avroyv UF (on the top of Kat ^wv) ; the phrase 
 was added in some copies on the basis of parallel passages ' 14/15 The 
 
The K Text of Joshua 9 
 
 K I6I0 TlaTa^ev i? otto ku- X 
 
 20 §>;■? jBapiny Kat e- 
 &)? ja!^i]^' Kat 7ra- 
 crav ri]v yi]v 70- 
 
 ^OV €0)9 77/9 7a- 
 
 ^acov *'7ravTa<i 42 
 
 25 Tou? ^acrtXei^; tov- 
 
 Kr]>1L ! cTrartt^ev Kro]+ai;Tovs S | 20 /cat Kr]>1L \ 22/23 yo^ov K] yoCofJ. V. 
 yo/xot, o : yocro/i, S : yacro/A IL | 23 yr^s K] tt^s ro 3L : prm rr^s S ' 24 Travras Kro] 
 
 prill Kut s 3L 
 
 iz ■ 22/23 yo^oi'] yoaofj. UF ] 23 yr??] 7775 ufi : prm tt;? Z ' 24 Travras] prm 
 Kttt UF I 25 — 
 
 Kat tTraraitv is] Kai aTre/cTetvev avTOvs is A0AGS (absque signis) : >BhC(t^^ \ 
 
 20 K:ai]>omn 21 Kat] Kai rrjv A et sub •)«(• G (5 Kttt tantum sub •:>(• habet): 
 >Bh€eA0 22 T-qv yrjv CA@] yrjv AGS: ttjv Bhe ; 22/23 yo^ov] yoaov €G 
 cf. =S: yoo-o/x BbeA0A 23 yr?s 0] ttjs B rell 24 Travras] Traoras A (sic): prm 
 Kai oran 25 — 
 
 sing, and plur. as in the case of ""i^'l'r; ; but note how inconsistent the 
 
 codices are 15/16 Kat ave^e/Aartcrev KrUF a doublet. ava^e/Liart^etv for 
 
 □■"-^riri is more hteral than e^oAe^peveiv. Comp. EV. utterly destroyed with 
 the margin: Heb. devoted avadqMiTicrtv ^nthout the augment which all 
 the others have 18 l^X omitted only in C 18 19 The Hebrew Ul'^ 
 "'I'ln* is resumptive of ""I'lri" m^'I at the head of vs. 40. A translator 
 hke <& might condense the text if he chose. The clause is according!}' 
 omitted in Bh(£€"'l.. It was then restored by the recensions. Origen 
 wrote Kttt aiTtKTuvev avTov<; ts. Observe that the ast is wanting in GS. Is 
 that the reason why the clause is retained in A0 ? Origen's wording pene- 
 trated also into uf (iz omit Kat and write crvvairtKTuvev , so as to indicate 
 that the verb is resumptive and that the clause is in the nature of a 
 summarj'). In the recension underlying Kr the clause is rendered Kat 
 eiraraUv ts; apparently from another source. Observe the difference in the 
 verb and the retention or omission of the object. Aiv exegetical difference 
 and perhaps even a textual variation underhe the two renderings. Origen 
 read D"*^ with 1^" and took the suffix to refer to the kings mentioned in 
 vs. 40. Accordingly he employs the verb airoKT^tvuv . The other recension 
 possibly read ni"! and took as its object the afore-mentioned localities; 
 hence iraTatjauv 20 The idiomatic 1 in "7" 1"1 is expressed in Kr, but 
 left untranslated in the remainder of the witnesses. In this instance the 
 
10 The American Journal of Semitic Languages 
 
 K 1616 TOV<; Kat [ttjv yrjv^ X 
 
 avTCov [eA.a/Set'] 
 t? et? aira^ [o 7ap] 
 tf? ^9 o-i/t'[e7ro\e-] 
 5 /ici TO) ti7[X : 'e7e-] 1 XI 
 
 1616 4 o Kro]>s ; 6^ Ko] + ti7X rs3L ! 4/5 o-vvcTroXe/xr? o 5/7 eyevero 
 
 1616 1 Tovrovs] avTUiV ufi : >Z 3 o yap]ort UF 4 o 0'^ ulF]>pt ^s]+ 
 
 1616 1 TovTOv; AG5] auTcov BhCC TovTOVi Kat] avTOv (•) rows Kara A® ] 
 2 eAajSev €A©AGS] tiraraitv Bhef' 3 o yap] on BhA0AGS | 4 o ^s liC] + 
 l^\ B0AGS: ><t\ I 5 lyjk BhCCf''A0]+ ^^Kat avearpeij/tv Is «s yaAyaXa A: 
 
 recension represented by Kr goes further than Origen in imitating the 
 Hebrew. But the 1 in '^yz'\ ""T is left out even in Kr ii 21 Kat expressing 
 the "I of 1^™ both in the recension underh'ing KrIL and in Origen. The 
 latter also inserted rrjv to express HS , both words being prefixed by an 
 ast. In this instance (contrast above on 11. 4-6) the second ttjv is wanting 
 not only in A, but also in G. The introduction of Kat is in this case not a 
 matter of idiom, but of text and exegesis. If we omit the conjunction, the 
 land of Goshen as far as Gibeon is tantamount to the territory' between 
 Kadesh and Gaza. See GemoU, Grundsteine zur Geschichte Israels, 1911, 
 35 f . ' 22 Tr)v y-qv was apparently wTitten by <S (comp. C) ; yrjv dropped out 
 subsequently through error (hence B and its consorts) 22 23 The name 
 "Z^ became in Greek transUteration yoa-ov (so C and, of course, Origen); 
 the corruptions noted above all admit of easy explanation I; 23 Here T17S 
 (against y-qs K0; s has both: rr^s y???) undoubtedly represents the original l| 
 24 The "! of ^."^ is expressed by all except Kro. It is the 1 of summing up 
 and might, of course, be missed even in Hebrew 25 — 
 
 1616 1 Towrovs = nbsn 1^."" was written both by Origen and by the 
 parallel recension (KrIL) ; <& wrote avrtov (B and its consorts), ^/ apparently 
 read nri^!jb"2 for ribj^Pl D'Zb'Zn ■ The Kotvr? reading found its way into 
 UF (the omission in z is due to condensation) Ij A® unite in presenting a 
 worthless reading: avrov Tov^ = av TovTov<;=av[T(Dv] todtohs, a sort of a 
 doublet; Kara is a corruption from kui t^tjv] ' eAa^ev = "i2> ?^™ which 
 reading penetrated also into C is common to both recensions; <5 wrote 
 £7raTa^ev = ri2ri , comp. VS. 40 ' 3 o yap KrIL against oti in the remainder; 
 a striving after less slavish Greek ' 4 The omission of t)/A in Ko and else- 
 where is in all probability due to condensation in view of the presence of 
 the word at the end of the verse. With tr/A. also o $k disappeared in (£A. 
 Much liberty was taken, it appears, with the divine names 5 The converse 
 
The K Text of Joshua 11 
 
 K IGlfe Nero 8e o)? [ tjkov-] XI 
 
 aev la^ifjL [ySacrt-] 
 Xeu? aaco^p OTrecr-] 
 TiXev 7r/3o[9 L(o/3a/3j 
 10 /3a(n\ea fia\ pcov^ 
 
 8e (OS T/Kovcrev Kr] ox; 8e tjkovctcv 1L I 7 ta^t/x K] ta/8etv R : abir 3S. , 8/9 aTrecTTi- 
 Aev K] uTreo-retAei' o: aTreo-reiAe rs 9 iaj/3a^ r] iroban ?S. ; 10/13 /mpwv — 
 fiaaiXea] >S 10 /xapwv Kro] afxappojv ^± 12 aofxopu)V Kro] (ro/xoppwv 5L | 
 
 i^A. UF I 5 TO) Z^A rf] ai'TOts iz 7 ta/Stp. ] ia/3n' UF ' 10 fmlpuyv] ] /iixSwv UF 
 
 +'**-^- Kat av€aTpexl/ev is Kat Tras I17A /xer avrov ets ttoAc/iov eis tt/v irapefi/SoX-qv cts 
 yuAyaAa : [[ets ttoAc/xoi' ] > 5 J] GS 5/7 eyevero 8e ws] ws 8e omn | 7 ut/Sifi] 
 tajSetv hi0AG5: ta/Jets Bh*eA: aj86S C i 7/8 ia/3. ^aailXevs] ] f^aaiXev; uifi . 
 h 9 tw^a/3 B rell] ttoa^ A: twpap. h { 10 fm[po}v] ] pxippwv B: pxippov €: a/mp- 
 
 process of condensation may be witnessed in iz which replaces rw It/A by 
 avrois 'i Verse 43 exists only in Origen's recension (G5; in an abbreviated 
 form in A). «s ttoAc/xov G which C rightly omits is merely a scribal error. 
 The same verse is found repeated in 1^" in this very chapter, vs. 15 (the 
 preceding vs. 14 Ukewise ends in b."<^-"b D~b:). As the verse there is 
 fomid in ro (alongside mth the codices representing Origen's recension; 
 Lagarde prints against liis own manuscript on the authority of ]\laes an 
 obelus, but G has an ast; the verse is also extant in B'^'^'''^*^<e"'), it may be 
 concluded that K hke^vise had it. In front of r.~»i.*^;A^, as Lagarde 
 informs us, there may be seen in his Syriac manuscript an erasure covering 
 a word of, as it seems, four letters; perhaps it was U^^:il^ = ets TroXe/xov 
 G in vs. 43 j] 5/7 <S, of course, read 'J'ZZZi """1 ^^'ith 1&"' which he rendered 
 somewhat freely ws 8e -qKova-ev; Kruf (but not IL, nor Origen) express "H'T !l 
 7 The uiI3[€:lv of the two recensions (in K /a is a miswi-itten v) is, of course, 
 the result of reverting to 1&'"; nevertheless, we may be reasonably certain 
 that <5 wrote la/Si-v Uke-nise and that tu^eis in the B texts (also in A) is due 
 to assimilation with 01^77? ZZ' ; hence perhaps the transposition in h: 
 
 *■ T 
 
 ySacrtAei's laySets aawp. In proper names, assimilation of one name to another 
 led to error 9 ia)/3a/3 which escaped disfigurement in the B texts became 
 LoxLfi in A through assimilation to Joab, and iwpup. in h through assimilation 
 to J(eh)oram (graphic similarity of P and B, and of ^ and p.); a sort of 
 conflate of tw/3a/3 and iwpa/x is iroban = ipw/3up. 10 ""i""^ ?&" is found in 
 Origen, whence it penetrated into uf, whereas KrU kept the kolvt] reading. 
 The latter in the form /xapwv (in pxippwv the gemination is inner-Greek; 
 apappwv with u dittographed after fSaaiXea) is what © wrote, and goes back 
 
12 The American Journal of Semitic Languages 
 
 K 1616 Kai irpo'i /3[acriA.€a] XI 
 
 crofJiopcov [/cat Trpo?] 
 
 ^aatXea a^^Lcfi ' Kai 2 
 
 TT/Oo? T0U9 ^^aaiXeL'i^ 
 15 Tou? KUT^a crt8ct)-] 
 i^a tt;!' /iA[e7a\77y] 
 
 13 al^C'*^] K] a^r?^ s: a^t/i. IL : ^iffy ro 17 o/atvvjv ro] opcLVYjv s 1 18 Tr]v K] prm 
 
 13 a^[t^] ] uit,L4>{va.t,y]4> z)UF 14 tot;s]>P | 18 T-qv ] prm ets 21 -vepo)^ i 
 
 (p)wv (£: joaSwv AQAGS I 12 o-o/Aopwv] aofJiepwv A0AG (S ^^j-i^a^) : a-v/xoaiv 
 
 BhC: samo'an e"^ 13 a^[i0] ] a^eic^ Bhe: o-i<^ C: axtc^ A©: ao-xa<^ G5: 
 
 Xaaacji A ^ 18 ttjv] prm ets Omn I a[/oajSa] h€AGS: pafia B(t^^: pajiaO A: 
 pa(3a$a i 18-20 Kat irpos Tovi arro /Soppa cf . S™ a^ cr^ Kat Trpos rov<s /?ao-iXets 
 
 to :ln» = *"lS^- 12:20 where it is combined with "T"^":; \\ 12 The readings 
 of the two recensions, aop-opoiv and aofjiepwv, unless corrupted from aep-epwv, 
 presuppose ".i~*«UJ in the place of ",i^"^ r . The B texts have crv/xowv, 
 comp. 12:20. If the reading be correct (it is quite possible that it is cor- 
 rupted from dvfjipwv or crvfjiopwv), the translator read '^^"'2'Z (" and ~i were 
 similar in a transitional alphabet after ;:; had been opened at the top) || 
 13 ax(Ta<t> of Origen (x"o-a<^ A is faulty) = ." CTS 1^"; but axa-acf), I beheve, 
 was also written by <§. Owing to the similarity of pronunciation between 
 <f) and spirantic fi (comp. above a remark on 6 and 8), axcra4> was mis- 
 written ax(Ta/3 and then by assimilation to the name n"7~55 = ax(Ti;8, a^t^ 
 (which under Ues aiip. IL), a$L(j>, a^t^ {$ miswritten as 0- Through haplo- 
 graphy after ySao-iAea, the initial a dropped out, the scribe having in mind 
 ^'■4>, 7" ■ "■X'-i* A© is a cross between axo-a^ and u^t<^ 15/16 In ^.^, 
 
 "in^l "ili^'J ^"^ appeared as "TiariZ^ "im - ; the current Greek text 
 was retained by both recensions ' 18 eis which is omitted bj^ K alone should 
 be restored ' The dropping of the initial a in apa(3a (B(£.^^) is not original, 
 but proceeded from the mistaken interpretation of the a as the Hebrew 
 article (n) which indeed would be redundant after the Greek article. pufSa 
 
 T 
 
 made certain scribes think of Rabbah (in Ammon) ; hence pa^aO A pajiaOa 
 
 (with dittographed a; airevavri follows) ' 18 20 kul Trpos Tous UTTO fSoppa 
 
 KrILl'f is derived, as we may gather from S™ (where read with Field 
 l-»ii^,.), from a' a' and represents, in agreement with 1i?™, the parallel to 
 Tovs Kara criSwva rrjv p.i.yaX.-qv <5. Note again that the second element of the 
 
The K Text of Joshua 13 
 
 K 1616 Kai njv a\^paj3a /cat J XI 
 
 7r/309 TOL'[? aTTO /Sop- J 
 20 /oa* aTreyfai'Ti ^e- 1 
 vepeO' ' K^ai ev rrj] 
 ireSivrj- K^ai et?] 
 <f)€VvaeS\ cop- Kat^ 
 
 eis R ^S- I 20/21 )(evi.p(.9 Ks iL] ^eFvepe6'r: )(i.vvape6 o \ 22/23 Kut ets </>erva£8[ajp] 
 K] Kui ets <f>evavedSo)p {et in faenanetdor) 31: aecfieva evSwp o: a€<f>eava evScop r: 
 
 22 Kat ]prm Kai ei? aecfiewa (cre(f)€va fz) | 23 <^evvaeS[wjo] ] (pewaevSwp i : 
 
 Tovs Kara fSoppav (1. }-»^r^^ ViiX)il.; cf. C''e)]>onin | 20/21 [xelvepe^ 
 llC©AGS (^iJ-s): xev€pe6'^i A: /cev£pa)6l B(£ ! 21/22 [ev Tr;] TTcStVT?] et? to TreStov 
 [[e6s]>A]l omn | 23 <l>€vvae8[u}p] ] ^emeSSwp B: fenddar (t: cjtavavToip C: 
 
 doublet comes in at a posterior place || 20 aTrernvrt = 13" |^" for QJo 1^""; 
 left uncorrected by both recensions Ij 20/21 ni^!3 for rii"'33 KcvepcjQ B<£ 
 (the K may be a test of originality; as the older pre-Septuagintal loan-words 
 prove, D was transliterated as k, T) as t, and 5 as tt; comp., however, 
 Xev€pw9 i); all the other texts have )(tvv€pS, the form singularized and 
 accomodated to other passages. The double v (ro) is, of course, correct; 
 X^vvapeO o with a is certainly defensible, but may be an inner-Greek variant 
 due to similarit}^ of sound (a source of frequent error transforming a singular 
 into a plural in verb-forms and vice versa); x^^P^^^' A is assimilated to 
 X^P^Odi {Tr'3) II 22 TTthivTq KrILuf for irthov was apparently taken from one 
 of the three, comp. l£^*^i:.iia!\o S'™ on Kai ets tt^v apaf3a li 22/23 ets <f>€v- 
 vaeSwp] For nn nii: ll"\ It?« probably read ^"n nSj , comp. 12:23. 
 Origen wrote va<jie68wp (from which i/a<^eS8wp, me^eSwp were easily developed) 
 = "li'n Dij , comp. Pi2ri 17:11. In view of /xac^era B in the passage 
 just mentioned which it is easy to correct into mc^era, I believe that the 
 original of <§ had va</>er8wp, and that it was corrupted through transposition 
 into fpaverSwp or ^emrSwp (comp. ^o5^JLs <S> here) to which all the other 
 variants are reducible. eSSwp may stand for ev Swp (comp. ro and uf) = 
 "lil "y • e may, however, represent an original 6; then, of course, va<fied- 
 8(Dp (with 6) was the original. The corrupt reading was retained by the 
 K texts, crec^eva evSwp o is corrupted from e? ( = £is) <^evaevSwp; in r an 
 irrational o- was inserted: o-e<^ea-va. uf have the correct o-e<^e'v>a by the 
 side of ets ij 24/25 K shares with r an omission which is clearlj^ due to 
 homoioteleuton. 6 joined the last word of vs. 2 to vs. 3; the translator's 
 knowledge of Hebrew thus reveals itself as exceedingly poor. Certainly 
 
14 The American Journal of Semitic Languages 
 
 K 1616 et? TOi/? ^TrapaXi-^ XI 
 
 25 ovi ■'^0|3/oa[iOi'9 /cai] 3 
 
 162a a/jiopp \aiov<i- kul 
 
 feuaioli'? Kai le- 
 l ^ova^aiovi Kai 
 I 0e/}]e^eou?- TOv<i 
 5 lev rja) opf Kai X'^t- 
 [ratoluf TOVi vtto 
 
 Kai ets va<f)edou}p S 1 25 ^oppatous Kr IL] prm tous ^avavatons aTro avaroXwv Kai 
 Toi's TrapaAtovs [[^(avaveovs O | ax oj OS j ;(oppatov? Kro 3L] ;(oipatovs S 
 
 162a 2 emiovs r] eucheos 3L | 3 -atous Krs] -eors o | 4 -e|^^eovs Ko] 
 -e^atovs rs j 5 opt K] opet R | 8 yrjv r] tt^v 3L | /xowtrav K] fioiocrav s : (Sutwcrav Y : 
 
 (f)avvaevSo)p z : <^evaev8ojp rell j 24/25 [7rapaXi]oi;s] + X'^vavatovs awo avaroXwy 
 Kai CIS Tovs irapa\iov<; 
 
 162a [ap,opp]atous] prm tous | 2-8 tov<; ^eTTaiov; rovi vtto ttjv €pr]fJiOv €ts 
 ryjv fia(T(f)Ofj. • kul rovs c^epe^atous tov<; ev toj opet • Kat rovs te/Joucratous tods ev 
 
 ic?M.s S : va(/)e88a)p h : va(j>e8wp A*G* : vacjiedSwp A^QAG^ {0 superscr) | 
 24 — 
 
 162a 8 €ts rovs TrapaXtous ^avavatovs aTro avaroAwv Kat ets tovs TrapaXtovs 
 afxoppaiov; kul evatot's Kat te/Sovcratous Kat (ftepe^aLOv; rovs ev tw opet • Kat rovs 
 )(eTTatov'i rovs vtto tyjv eprj/Jiov ets Tr)v fjM(Tf.vfjuiv [[evatovs. ujSovrruiois, </)epe^aiovs] 
 </)epe^uioi's, evatovs, leySovcatovs ^ | ep7;/xov] + ev rco opet C : + Kat <£ (jLaaev/xav 
 
 ^T-Sn D^"1 r-^T'-"- •;":-" D"2 cannot mean " by the sea the Canaan- 
 ite at the east, and bj' the sea the Amorite "; the translator covered up the 
 awkwardness of the Hebrew by the use of a Greek adjective: TrapaAtos. 
 Neither of the two recensions, however, dared to alter the text, though the 
 correct translation was available in o-' (comp. S"). U'^^iJo of S may seem 
 to be a slight adaptation to ?|?™; but probably it is an error (a likewise 
 omits the 1) ! 25 The Horites (concerning whom see E. Meyer, Die 
 Israeliten, 330-345; Gemoll, he. cit., 349 ff.) are peculiar to the K recension; 
 textually, "ir; is a pendant to "^in later on The order of the nations after 
 the Amorites is the same in Origen (and thence also in uf) as in ll?": 'fir; , 
 "T^i , "CIZ" , ■'"1m , while the K recension follows the order of the current 
 Greek texts: nrr, "C1l^ "T^i , "Dr (C alone deviates from the order of 
 the B texts with an arrangement of its own). While uf reintroduce the 
 Hebrew order, their text is complicated in that they retain with "rir , 
 though they place it first, all that follows "ir; in the form of B (with the 
 readings ep-qp-ov and /Mta-cfjop.) , while after "^1" which they place last they 
 
The K Text of Joshua 15 
 
 K lG2a f"'"^?'^] €pj]fiov et? XI 
 
 [77;^! fJLocoaav : 
 r^Kai e^^i]X6ov at ira- 4 
 
 10 IpejJL^jBoXaL avTco 
 
 Ikul o]t /QacrtXet? av- 
 
 iSowaui' 0: fxacraoafx. It | 9 *^ Kr 1 9/10 ai Trapefx/SoXai avTwv [[at] e oj] Kr] avroL 
 
 TO) opei- Kttt TOv<s ivaiovs TOv<s VTTO TT^v atpjxoiv et? TT/v fjM.a<Tr]<f)a6 [[tol's 2°]> 
 U I CIS l*']>iz I TYjV l°]>p i /xjacr<f)OfjL] fjiaacfiw/x U , tods tv tw opei 2°]>iz | pjia- 
 
 B<£] paaey^efx C : fjxi(Te.jXfiaO ll : iJiu<7rj(f>a h-J| BllCCC : ets rovs TrapaAtovs 
 ;(avai/a60vs(") aTro avaroXwv ■ kul ets rous TrapaXiov; a/xoppatous ■ Kut tovs 
 ;^errutot's(") kul cf)€pe^aLOv<;{-) kul i£/ffovcraiovs tovs £v tw opet • Kat tods evaiovs 
 DTTO T77r aepixwv ei? tt/i' ixa<Tari<^a ■ |[a/i,oppatous SUp ras A^ '] ;(avavatovs A* 
 (^ept^atoi's] prin Toi's © vtto] prm tous A© , ttjv 2°] yT^v A I pxiaarjcjia] 
 pxxa<T-n<^a6 A]] A©AGS (1. U'">i^i pro U'^^^^yo) j 8 ij j 9/10 at TToiptiAlioXaL 
 
 give what follows the Hexaplar form (with the readings acp/xwv and fjuaa- 
 <Tr]<f)aO). Hence UF = KR+Hexaplar modifications worked into that recen- 
 sion. Note how ir;2 is added both to ''7"i2 and "Cl^" , to the former in 
 conformity with the K recension, to the latter in accordance with the 
 Hebrew 7 epyj/xov is, of course, an inner-Greek error for eppuDv ''\ 8 yrjv 
 R comp. T7]v yrjv A is to be restored everywhere in the place of rrjv. 
 What favored the change of r to T was the circumstance that Alizpah 
 occurs elsewhere as a citj'- How nili - was transliterated by (5, hides itself 
 in the kolvt] variants which are at first sight baflfling especially if we include 
 the variants in vs. 8 (163«, 1. 7), though W."" points there n'£'l'2 ■ 
 
 Be h e K r <> s IL UF 
 
 fiao'evfj.ai' /xaae/xpLad ^tacrexe/x /xouiaav jSuioocrav iSouxrav fj-woaav fj.acrcroa/j. /xaacpo/j, 
 IJ.a<T(Twx iJ.a<Twx fiafftpav fxaffcpajj, jjMcrtpav iJ.a<7r](pa piocrcpa, fiaffipoafji. 
 
 In the lower line, s comes near the Hexaplar form {p.aa-a-q4>a{6)) which (see 
 above) is found in uf in the first place by the side of the other form. The 
 Hexaplar form may be paralleled elsewhere in the Greek Bible; in this book 
 
 comp. 18:26 ixtLcra-qpja. (B), fiaaarjcjia (GA) (roILA© have, however, puu.cr<i)a). 
 
 It is not easy to explain the form (confusion with n2i2"I?). It is clear, 
 
 T " ~ 
 
 however, that the Kotv-q forms shown in the table exliibit no trace of r]. It is 
 just as manifest that in the three columns on the left the silent -^ is repre- 
 sented b}^ c, whereas in the remaining columns to the right no vowel 
 corresponds to it at all. With a view to the reading of C, the reading of h 
 (with one a) in the lower Une is certainly to be preferred to that of B (with 
 double 0-) ; moreover, w stands for o which latter was a graphic error for e. 
 
16 The American Journal of Semitic Languages 
 
 K 162a I Tcov] uer avrw XI 
 
 [(i)cr7r1e/9 rj afx/j.o'i 
 [tt;? 6]a\aaar]<; ro) 
 
 ^Kat a^p/xara ttoX- 
 
 l\a (T<f)^o8pa' "kui 5 
 
 [avve^/SaXov irav- 
 
 IL 15 -6tL Ks] 'dri r (per compendium o) 18 [(rvve\jSa\ov Ivi'o] (Tvvr]\9ov s3L 1 
 
 arj(f)a6 u' (o" SUperscr)lt ] fma(n(f)a6 p : ^ma-r]4>a6 U*f]] 9 1[ | 14 Trj<; OaXaa- 
 crr^s ] prm Tj e-TTL to x^lXos [[r; ]>fi , €7rt ] Trupa p]] | 17 ^ , 18 [cn've]y8aAov ] 
 o-wiyA^ov I 20 wapeye-] eye- iz 
 
 atrrwv] aurot omn 12 avTw B rell]+Xaos ttoXus A et sub •>(• GS ' 14 [ttjs 
 ^JoAao-o-r/s Bli€<£] prm r) em to xetAos [[ctti] irapa A]] A ©AGS \ 15-17 Kat — 
 
 On the other hand, in the upper Une B with -av is correct, and C with -e/x 
 corrupt. X is apparently a mistake for <^ to which the consonants of Bh in 
 the upper line also seem to lead. p. stands for /?, and so does v; the latter 
 interchange clearly points to the spirantic pronunciation of /3, and this 
 shows that the original was <^. Hence we obtain p.a<j€<^av as the reading 
 underlying BhC^. As for that of the K recension, its correct form appears 
 to be preserved in pxia4>av Ko (and with v corrupted to yu, in r; v, however, 
 should be deleted, comp. ?!-; it was introduced from the parallel passage 
 where it belongs of right: accus. ending) in the lower line; /xao-^oa/x uf is 
 a cross between p.aacf>ap. and pxtai^op. uf upper line; the a is, of course, 
 correct; pxio-cmop l.</xucroa/z.</iatr(^a/A (o<0). The form underhdng the 
 readings of Kr in the upper line was clearlj' fjioo(Tuy<.po(f>a-av<Cp.o(T(jiav comp. 
 p.o(T<f>a 11 lower hne</i,e<^(ra(v)</i,ecr<^a(v) (o<e) 10-12 In the place of 
 Cr!";~'I ^S?"", 1^" read C~'lb'I , hence avTOi kul ol ^ao-tAets uvTm', which 
 Origen allowed to stand. Xot so the K recension (all except 3L) which 
 inserted at Trapep/SoXiu uuTa)i=2n"ir,"^ , but in the process lost avTot=u~ 
 13 Z"^ C" , which is an apposition to CH"™"^ , naturally was wanting in 
 1^*^; it found a place in the Hexapla (a mechanical procedure which may be 
 paralleled in other cases), but not in the K recension 14 Origen likewise 
 inserted nS'l" b" ^-X which <3 did not read or else omitted by way of 
 condensation. No signs were used by him, hence the presence of the plus 
 in A0. It was also introduced in uf 18 o-we/JaAov Kro and Origen. 
 From an unknown source, since a a', according to Maes, wrote (not w/xoAo- 
 yrjaav — the Greek is his from the SjTiac — but) <rvvecf>wvr)(Tav (comp. <S Gen. 
 14:3; a' has there (rwcySaAov, whereas a' writes o-vrqXdov). All the other 
 
The K Text of Joshua 17 
 
 K 162a [re? oi^ ^aatX.ei'i ov- XI 
 
 20 Itol K^ai. irapeye- 
 
 {vovT^o eiri ro av- 
 
 Ito Ka^L 7rapev€/3a- 
 
 yXov elTTt Tov vSa- 
 
 \to<; fi}apa)v iroXe- 
 25 r//-7;o"a(l 7r/30? IrjX^ ' 
 1626 '^Kai enreu «■? 7rpo9 6 
 
 Iv- firj (f)o/3r]dr}<; 
 
 airo TrpoaooTTOV av- 
 
 T(ov on avpio 
 
 5 TTjV COpaV TaVT7] 
 
 irapaBtBcofiL av- 
 
 22/23 7ra/Deve/3a'^Aovj Kroil] + CTt to avTo S 2-4 [xapojv Kro] ficppwv il- : [xeppwjx S 
 1626 1 •[ Bjs [ enreu Krs] eiTre O 2 (f}ofir]9r]i K] (^o^tj^eis ro: (^0^77? S 6 Tra- 
 
 1626 5 Tr; wpa Tarrrj iz ! 6 TrapaSiSwjLii] prm eyw | IrjX] prm (twv pt) 
 
 o-<^oS/3tt]>e»> 17 ^ 18 [o-we] /?aAov AGS] avvrjXOov B rell 19/20 ov[tol] 
 hA0AGS] avTot B : avrmv ^^^ 19/21 oi'TOt kul 7rapeyevovTo]>C 21/23 ein 
 TO av[To Ka]t Trapeve^a Aoi' BhC£]^ ALtS : Trpos avrov Kai -KapevefiaXov 
 
 £7rt ro arro A : ctti to avTO 2-4 [/x]apwv] /juippwv BCl£ : fxappinp. b' : fxeppwr 
 
 AAS (,=t-ic) : fjLeppw : fjieppMfji h*G ; 25 Trpos] Toj' omn (sed V^ - . T.' - 'i, S) 
 
 1626 1 ^ Bh A0 4 avpto[v] B rell] prm T-qv G 5 rrfv wpav TavTr)[v] 
 
 [[t77v]>G]] A0AGS]v^Bh 6 irapaSiSwfjii] prm eyw omn 6-8 avrov; rerp. 
 
 texts (B, UF, sit, also A0) liave o-wtjXOov. Hebrew Ti^TI 'i 19/20 avroi B 
 (comp. avTwv (£■) undoubtedly an error for ovtoi B and its consorts place 
 1~r,"' after "l aL'-i ; so also the K recension. Origen changed the order to 
 accord with l?". The uncertainty of position led some scribes to ^^Tite ein 
 TO avTo tmce, both before and after /cat irapeve^aXov, so s and apparently 
 the archetype of A0, only that A changed the first into Trpo? avrov, while 
 © omitted kul Trapevef3uXov eiri to avTo through homoioteleuton I 24 The 
 transliteration of C1"^"^ (comp. also 1626, 1. 17) oscillates between fuippw/j. 
 
 (fuippiov, fxxipuiv) and ixeppwp. {jj-eppwr. jxeppw) . The former was wTitten by <§ 
 and retained by Kro, the latter apparently' belongs to Origen. Either pre- 
 supposes HT^- ; for the a of <§ comp., e.g., puixavapeO Deut. 3:17 B ", 25 
 Trpos lijk expresses the Hebrew more faithfully than tov IrjX which & wTote 
 and which Origen apparently suffered to remain 
 
 1626 4 '5 avptov T-qv transposed in G, an error : 6 eyw was left out by 
 
18 The American Journal of Semitic Languages 
 
 K 1626 T0U9 TerpoTTQ}- ^I 
 
 fievov^ evavTio 
 
 IrjX'' • T0U9 iTTTTOf? 
 
 10 avTMv vevpoKO- 
 
 irrjaefi' kul ra ap- 
 
 fjLara avrcav Kara- 
 
 Kavcrei^; irvpL • ' teat 7 
 
 i]\dev Xao'i- Kai 
 15 TTa? \ao<i o TToXe/xt- 
 
 crT7/9" €7r avTOV<i e- 
 
 TTL TO vSojp'' fiapCO 
 
 e^aireiva' /cat €- 
 irecrov ctt uvtov^ 
 
 pakSwfu K] prm eyw rIL j 2/3 tctpottw/aci/ovs Ks] rerpoTro/ACvovs ro | 9 tT7A. 
 Kro3L] prm mwv S 1 11 -7rr?o-eis Krs] -tttjo-is o 14 o Aaos K] Is 'B% \ 17 fxxipw[v] 
 Kro] fJi.€pp(ov 1L : ixepptaix S ! 18 e^ainva R j 18/19 eireaov Ks] CTrecrev O : eTrcTreo-fv 
 
 mwv I 14 ^ I o Aaos] is | 18/19 eiredov] eTreTrecrev U : CTreTreaov rell 
 
 hA0AGS]^B I avTOvs] TravTas avTOVS A et Sub •)«(• GS I 7/8 TeTpoTTw/ACvovs 
 B rell] T€Tpwfxevovs A : ^.N.°1 S ( ^ . ^ . ,: ue S") ' 8 evavTto[i/] B rell] ernvn 
 h I 9 i^A] prm tov B cf . CCS : prm viwv A©A et sub •>(• G : prm Travros 
 h I 11, 13 -TTTjo-eis. -Kavo-ets] pi. <2& 13 irvpt] prm ev Bh© [ ^ BhA©G 14 o 
 Aaos] is omn | 16 ctt arrovs BhCCA©] prm /xer avrov AG et sub -Xc ^ 17 
 p«pa)[v] ] iMippoyv BCeA : pxippwd © : ^=r^ S : pappiap. Ghi : p^tppoip. Ah* | 
 18/19 ETreo-ov] cTTCO-ai/ A : eTrtTrecrav B (pi. ee)AG(pl. 5)©^ : eTrcTTCO-ev 
 h0* I 19 €7r auTOvs Bh (.001 .Ss Si) ] auTOis A0AG , 20 ev tij opiv??] SUb — 
 
 the scribe of K " Travras was omitted by ©; Origen alone supplied it ii 7/8 
 TeTpoTrwp-evovs all but A is evidently an old error ("quod emendatum ita esse 
 credo a sciolo nescio quo" Drusius) for rerpw/Aevovs (the reading is found in 
 16; 82; F; Aid.; Compl.; ^.^i°i S>^ apparently is meant for TerpoTrw/xevovs, 
 while -'^^ i' ^ S™ expresses T€Tpwp.evovs) 9 vimv which G has sub ast is 
 wanting in Ji?"". Did l^"" read "Z Tib ? Nor does Travros h correspond to 
 an element in li)-" 14 o Aaos K is a clear error (the identical error 5, 9 C^) ; 
 perhaps is was miswritten Z^A which is frequently paraphrased by o Aaos i 
 16 p£T avrov='\l2y was added by Origen alone || 18/19 The manner in 
 which the codices divide %A'ithin one group on the question of number, shows 
 that we arc dealing with individual vagaries of scribes. The vulgar form 
 with a is apparently the original; the K recension substitutes the classical 
 
The K Text of Joshua 19 
 
 K 1626 "iC^ 20 ev*^ TT] opivT)- ^Kai 8 XT 
 
 irapeScoKev avroi/<; 
 
 /C<f UTTO^eipiOlS 
 
 TO) irjX'' Kai eirara- 
 ^av auTow kul 
 25 KOTrrovTa aVTOV<i 
 163a KareSicoKov eco? 
 
 aiBcovo'i T7]<i fxe- 
 yaXi]'^- Kai eco<; 
 jxaaep'qp.wO^ airo 
 
 r : inuasit IL | 19 avTovi KR]-{-timor 31 | 20 opivr) Kr] oprjvt] o : opuv-q s "^ rs 
 1 23/24 Kttt tirara^av avTOvs Kr]>1L 24 -^av Ks] -^ev TO 25 — 
 
 163o 1 avTOVS KaTcStwKov Kro3l]^S I 2 CTtScuvos Krs] (nSwSovos o ] 4 
 fuiaeprjfiwd Ks] fUKTipLfiwd ro: /Jua^epiDd IL 4/5 airo OaXaaar)<i Kr] >3L' j 
 
 163a 4 pacrepeixwd 7 yuacrt^av ] fx/xd^oafx 12 Sia(re(7a)cr/Aevov uf 
 
 GS : CK T779 op€iVT]<; <B ! 23 Tw]>omn ' 23/24 »cat eTrara^av avTovs]>omn I 
 
 XOTTTOl'TeS B rell] KarCKOTTTOV Kttt h 
 
 163a 1 KareStwKOv] + avTov<; AAGS | 4/5 luiatprffxaid airo 6aXa(r(rr]^] 
 
 form with o. The compound is manifestly right: cTreTr- became through 
 haplographj' ctt-. 3L with its ^i»?or stands alone 20 ev r-q opeLvrj, sub obelo 
 0rigen, = "'n3 (after DHZ) 23 '24 /cat cTraralav avrov?,. pecuHar to the K 
 recension, represents a pendant to kul /coTrrovres avrovs from some other 
 version '25 — 
 
 163a 1 h coordinates kotttovtes avrovs /<are8tcoKov This is good Greek 
 style; the pronoun placed between the two verbs goes with both. Origan, 
 however, added a second aurous I 4 D""2 riS"'*!- was reproduced by 
 Origen (and hence in A©) as /xaa-pecfywd /xafeltyu,; in 13, 6 G alone reads 
 fjui(Tp€<f)wdiJiaiiJ.. while A A have fJMaep€(f>w0fjua(e ip. and fma-aep€<f>wOpxiifi (<t 
 dittographed) . The kolvt] readings of both passages present themselves as 
 follows : 
 
 B(Ch % Keuf 
 
 fiaffepwv /xaatpiiid fjuiffepijfjicjd airo daXaairrjs 
 
 e UF 
 B h ro ui" 
 
 /U.acrepe5/ne/ix0W/aat/u ij.acrepai6fjLefj.<pufMid ij.apee(7e<pwd(.i' /j.a(Te(pwdefj.ixa /xacrpecpwdaip. 
 
 fxapffecftwdaifj. U 
 IJia(rp€<pii}p.ai0 iz 
 
 In the latter passage, the reading of <£ is corrupt: tnu'ala ('-wo'o/a; Dill- 
 mann emends ma as) acpeO puup.. It is clear that in B ptp. is a pendant to 
 
20 The American Journal of Semitic Languages 
 
 K 163a 5 dakaa-ai}^' Kai e- XI 
 
 &)9 Tcot" TreSccov 
 
 fjia(T(f)av Kara a- 
 
 vaTo\a<;' Kai eKO- 
 
 ■\^av auTOV^' eco? 
 10 Tov iuii] KarakeL- 
 
 (^Orjvai e^ avrwv 
 
 aecrwafievov' Kai 
 
 8La7r€(f)€vjOTa • 9 
 
 ^Kai eTTOirja-ev av- 
 15 TOL^ i<?* KaOoTi enre 
 
 6 TTcStwv K] TratStwv s : TreStvwv ro : campos IL ] 7 iuicr<f>av Ko] /xa(7<^a/A r : ixoa<f)a 
 IL : fxaar]4>aS \ Kara Ko-s] Kar r | 10 KaraXei- Ks] KaraAt- r: KuraXrj- O \ 11 e^ 
 avTwv Kr]>1L I 12 a-ea-diafjievov Ks] 8ia(r£(jo)(rfxevov r: saiwifs ?l : (reo-to(T/xevovs 
 O I Kttt Kr]>11 I 13 SiaTre^euyoTa Ks3l] Sia7re<^euyoTas r: SiaTre^evywras O ] 
 
 13 
 
 Tre^euyoTa z | 14 ^ 1 ] cttoiei iz | 14/15 avTovs 1 | 15 Kadori ufi ] Ka^ws Z 
 
 • _^ 
 
 (tcov A) /Aacr/3e^w^(')j«.a(e)t/A (-/Aatv A) AQAGS : /xaacpoiv Bh€ \ 6 ttcSkov 
 B rell (IZsi-os <S) ] TreStvwv AG ! 7 /xao-<^av] /JMaa-rjffiad G : /xaacrrjipa A® : 
 /Aao-[o-]r7<^a A : }"»-35^ ^ : /jxiaawx B : /xao-wx li : masoh (t I 9 -ij/av B rell] 
 -i/'ev A 1 11 e^ (habent <£S'?)]> B rell 12 creo-wo-juievoi'] 8tao-eo-wo-)U,evov 
 (-av h) omn 1 12/13 Kai 8ta7re<^ei;yoTa h]> B rell ! 14 ^ liA® | 14/15 avrots 
 B rell] avTovi h 1 15 ti B rell] prm o A | Kadon A®AGS (ii^ -f^l) ] ov Tpoirov 
 
 {juaifx. and that <^w belongs after /mo-epe (in h the final /a has been replaced 
 by 6; at, of course, stands for e); hence B read fiacrep^ffiwOfMiifi, the e after a 
 (unless a faulty repetition of o-) expressing the r ■ The lower readings of 
 roiLuF, corrupt as they are, seem to go back to two variants: /Aao-epee^w^/mi/A 
 (or -firjfji) ro?L and fiuapecftwOfiuLfji uf. In the present passage, utto daXaaar)<i 
 = D''":] was inserted by the K recension (all except 3t) from o-' (according to 
 Euseb. and &""); while uf still express the constr. state, Kr reproduce the 
 absol. state. The p. may be a corruption of fS=(t> (see above on 162a, 1. 8); 
 if genuine, then M" read nV^Tl"- , comp. nV^T:; Jer. 31 (38): 39 ketib 
 and transliterations in (P. IL with its pxiaepwd {z for s) comes nearer the 
 original than the pMatpaw of BhCJ; it is apparently curtailed from pxiaeprjp.- 
 (or <t>)(od. U"2 has accordingly dropped out of the B texts || 6 Apparently 
 TTcSitov was wTitten by ® (see above on 1616, 1. 22) |j 7 See above on 162o, 
 1. 8 1] 12/13 Ktti Sta7r£(^ei)yora of the K recension a reminiscence from the 
 ground passage 8:22 I, 15 ov rpo-n-ov was apparently written by © j eiTrei/ 
 
The K Text of Joshua 21 
 
 K 163a avTU) «?• rov^ lit- XI 
 
 TTOW avTCOv evev- 
 poico7n]crev' Kut ra 
 ap/xara avrcov eve- 
 20 irp-qaev irvpi: ^" Kai 10 
 
 €7r€crTpa(f)rj (?• Kai 
 ira^ IrjX fier avTOv 
 ev rat Kaipco eKei- 
 vco- /cat Kareka- 
 1636 /Sero r^r^v acrfup'] 
 
 Kai, Tov /3[acrtXea] 
 avT7}<i- Tjlv he a(y(opA 
 TO irpoTyepov a/3-] 
 5 ^(^ovaa 7ra\ao)v tcov'I 
 
 14 ^ r 16 avTQ) Kas?L]>r ] 17/18 evevpoKOTrrjaev Krs] evevpwKOTrrjae o: 
 evevpoKOTTTjaav 3i- | 19/20 eve-Trprjaev I\.] ev€Trvpixre{v) r: eveirpTjaav (s. ev£7rvpicrav) 
 cv ii- I 20 "^ Ks ; 21 €ireaTpacf>r) K] airccrr pa^-q R 24 — 
 
 163& 1 /careXa^iSero] obsedit 31 -ySero Kro] -/5e s ao-wp r] assor 3L 
 (sed OSOr 3, 18; 164a, 15) I 3 avrr]? KR]+a7reKT€tvev ev po/JLipaui IL \ 4 Trpor- 
 
 etTre ] everetAaro 16 tow] pnn Kai 1 19/20 eveTVp-qaev uf ] KaTeKavae iz | 
 TTvpt] prm ev UF j 20 1[ ul ! 21 airecrTpaffiT] UF 
 
 1636 3 77[v 8e acrcop] ] 77 8e a(rcop r/v UF 1 8 -vav 1f] ve(v) upt , 8-9 7rav[Ta 
 
 B rell i et7re[v] ] everetXaro omn 20 Trvpi] prm ev omn | ^ BAQGt I 21 
 €TreaTpa(j>r]] aTreaTpacf^r] Bli : eTreorpei/'ev A©G : aTreorpei/'ev A | 21/22 k<u — 
 avTov h]> B rell 
 
 1636 1 T[r)v] A et sub •)iC- GS]>B rell j 2/3 >li 3 avry]^] + areKTeivev 
 ev pofX(f)ULa A et SUb •>(• GS I 77[v 8e acrwp] Bfi:AG] otl aawp r]v A0S j 
 
 KrI. comes closer to the Hebrew than everetXaTo which Origen retained i| 
 19 20 For ""'^ we find eixiripL-n-pavciL. eyu.7rupt^eiv. and Kura/cavetv. The plural 
 in IL is faulty 21 The active intransitive in Origen; the others have the 
 passive. The forms with a are apparently origmal 21/22 The plus in the 
 K texts and h introduced from parallel passages ,24 — 
 
 1636 1 obsedit IS. points to a variant r-qv which expresses rij< both in 
 Origen (but not in A0) and in the K recension 3 ZTH riin which was 
 missing in ?!?" or else left untranslated by <5 by way of condensation was 
 supphed by Origen sub ast (hence omitted in A0) whence probably it found 
 
22 The American Journal of Semitic Languages 
 
 K 1636 ^a(Tt\ew\^v roi/-] XI 
 
 Twv ^^Kai [aTre/crei-] H 
 
 vav TravT^a ra ev-] 
 TTveovra [ey au-J 
 10 tt; ev ^o\v(o fta-J 
 
 KUL €^(oXo[6peva-d^ 
 avTov<; 7ra[t'Ta9] 
 15 KUL ov KaT^^eXei-^ 
 (f)6r] ev7r\^veov ej 
 avTTj- Ka\^L TT}v\ 
 
 Krs] TrpojT- O i 6 ^aa-ikeiwv Krs] (iacnXuov O 8 [ev-] ] e/ut- R 10 ev Kos] c/a r 
 11 -vatpas Krs] "X^PlO-?! O [av€-] Kl's] ava- 11/12 Kat avcdcixaTtaav avTrjv 
 Kr]>31- 12 -deixaTLaav K] -^e/Aartcrei' R 13/14 K?L]>R i 15/17 Kat — arr?; 
 KrsiL]>0 15 KttT^eAet-] Ks] KareAt- r , 16 cvtt- K] efxir- rs : 16/17 [e] avTr] 
 
 ra t.v]Trv€0VTa ] Trav efiirveov UF 10/11 cv <^o[va) fui];;(aipa?] ei' CTTOfULTi $l4>ov<: 
 UF I 13/14 ] > UF I 15/17 Kttt — avTT? Uf ] > iz 16/17 ev7r[veov 
 
 6 /SacrtXeiwv B rell] PaaiXewv <£ 8 vav B rell] -ve(v) AA | 8/9 TravT[a ra 
 ev]7rv£ovTa] irav £/x7rv£0v B rell 9 [ev] ] prm •)«(• o : G cf. € 9/10 [ev av\Tr] B 
 rell]>A 10/11 <j>o[vw fjualxaipaii] (JTO^mTi $L(f)ov<; A0AGS : $i<}>€L BhC 11/12 
 Ktti — avTr][v] ]>Omn 13 e$wXo[0p€V(7d] ] Sg. AA 14 7ra[^VTas] ] Sub — G5 
 
 its way to 11 on aawp r)v S (and so A0) faitlifuUy reproduces the Hebrew; 
 AG (and so uf) go with B in reading tj 8e aawp -qv, of which r^v 8e aawp KrIL 
 represents a graphic variety 8 In the matter of number again individual 
 divergences 8/9 The plural and the article only in Kr3L 9 o G sub ast 
 expresses n-^s 10/11 "^m "Sb appears as ev ^t<^et in the B texts, ei- 
 arofuiTL ^K^ovs in Origen (also A® and uf), but ev c^ovw /m^atpas in KrIL 
 which expression (with or without ev) is confined to @ in five passages of the 
 Pentateuch (Exod. 17:13; Num. 21:24; Deut. 13:15 (16); 20:13; 28:22) I] 
 
 11/14 KaL av(.6f.pxxTL<Tav avTrjV RUF, Kai €$wXoOpevaav avrov; Travras all the 
 
 others (B texts, Origen and texts dependent on him, IL) ; K alone has both, 
 that is a doublet. See above on 161a, 11. 15 '16 avrr/v the city, avTov<; the 
 persons; the object which is not expressed in the Hebrew made exphcit '' 
 Travras was obelized by Origen 15-17 Condensation in oiz ev avTrj which 
 
K 1636 
 
 164a 
 
 The K Text of Joshua 
 
 20 
 
 aacop^ et'er7r/37;cre 1 
 ev TTvpf ''/cfai 7ra-1 
 aa<; ra<; TroXTet? ToTl 
 ISaaiKeoyv [toi/tcJ] 
 KaL avrov<i [tou?] 
 ^a(n\eL<; av\^Ta^v^^ 
 eXa^ev «• [/cat a] 
 ^V€i\€v aulrou? ey 
 [crro/iJaTi ^ic^ou? 
 [/cat e]|fw\o^/3eu- 
 [crez/ aluTOf? oy 
 [r/aoTrloi' avveTa- 
 
 23 
 XI 
 
 12 
 
 Krs]>iL I 17 11 r I 18 eve [Trpr/cre] KJ eveTrvpLaev rs: eveTrupto-av o3t [ 19 ev Kr] 
 >IL I 21 [toutw] r]>1L I 22/23 kul — a^rw] KrolL]>s | 23 avrov^: Kro]> 
 11 ' 24av[;Ta)v]KriL]>o 
 
 164a 1 -vetXev rs] -vrjXev o \ 3/4 e^wAo^pev^o-evJ EJr] €^oXo6p€vcrev ro: 
 
 e ] avTT] ] ^ uf : 18 eve [TrpTjcre] ] €V€irpr)(Tav UF ^ 19 If U \ 22 aurovs] 
 TravTas UF I 24 eXa/Sev ] crvveAa^ev UF 
 
 I 18 £ye[Trpriai] <EAS] pi. B rell 19 •[ A | 21 ftaaiXewv B*heAS] /SaaiXeioiv 
 B^ A©G I rourwl^v] A et sub vjC- GSj>B rell i 22 aDrousJ Travras A et sub •>(• 
 GS : >B rell 
 
 164a 2 [o-To/Ajari ^k^ovs B rell] ^6^et e ' 4 [crev] heAOAG] -crav B rell | 
 
 is wanting in l^."" all except it '<\ 18 Note again indi\adual divergence in 
 the choice of number 21 The same may be observed with reference to 
 (SamXewv and /SaaLXenov (comp. the same variation above, 1. 6); certainly 
 the reading of the first hand of B ( = h<e), not to mention two representa- 
 tives of the Hexapla (AS), agrees with WZyZT"! ?H" (though nib-'^n 
 would have done away with the awkwardness of the present text) nbi^n 
 was apparently missing in ?t?s; both the K texts (except 1.) and Origen (sub 
 ast; hence the omission in A0) made the omission good 22 23 The omission 
 in s in all Ukelihood due to homoioteleuton 23 avTov<: Kro may be an 
 attempt to ease the awkwardness spoken of above; Origen wrote Travras 
 ( = bl) sub ast (whence it was admitted to uf; properly wanting in A0) || 
 24 o is bent upon condensation aweXafiev uf comp. (rwaTreKreivev iz 161a, 
 11. 18/19 
 
 164a 3 4 The plural in the B texts and ii 7 Contrast 14 9-12 The 
 passage is exceedingly instructive. In the first place we learn that it is 
 
24 The American Journal of Semitic Languages 
 
 K 164a [^ev fi^(ovai]<i o XI 
 
 \^7rat<;^Kv ^^ttXtjv 13 
 
 [Tracra? 1 Ta<i TroXei? 
 
 10 [o-/xei']a9* /cat ea- 
 I T&)(x]a9 €7rt TCOV 
 '^^tv^(ov avToov 
 [ou/cj eveTTprjae 
 
 eiwXoOpevaav IL ! 6 -[$ev\ K] -^e R | -wucrr;; KsH] wo-jjs ro | 7 «^ fS | 9/10 
 |K'e;;^w/i,aTt|^cr/xeras] Kro] Kex<^TLaix£va<i s: disruptas % : -\- a eo-Tr^/cutas ck 
 vto/xaros cr tS/au/xevas eKaarrjv eirt vij/ov; Y \ 10/12 Kai — avTwv Kr]!>1L | 12 
 [^tv]a)v K] OeLVMV a: drjvwv r | 13 eveirprjaely] K] eveirpLcrev R I 14 [ev Trjvpt K 
 
 164a 7 If 1 I 14 [ei/ Tr]vpi] > UF { 15 [aawp] ] prm Tfjv i ! ^ov7?v ] + 
 
 6 iX(x)(Tr)S G 1 7 ^ A I TrXrjv] aXXa omil ! 8-10 Ke;(<nj/xaTtcr/Aeva] + avTwv A et Sub 
 
 •:>(. G (S™ .—..lai^LlLa^l:. z ^ziifli:^5 w» UliZ V:^ ^i^^ ]) 10-12 mi — 
 
 characteristic of r to incorporate in the text (not, as we are informed by 
 Parsons, in the margin) parallel renderings from the three with the express 
 mention of the translators' names. The circumstance that the plus is 
 omitted in K shows that its omission in o (not to mention s or 31) is not 
 due to condensation, but that the matter was really wanting in the arche- 
 type of ro, and that it is r to whose account the amplification is to be 
 charged; it is quite possible that in the archetype it stood on the margin. 
 Hence, in similar instances, when the testimony of K is not available, an 
 amphfication of the same character found in r but wanting in o (s3L) will 
 have to be excised; in my forthcoming edition it shall find a place in the 
 apparatus but shall be cut out of the text. P'or, in the light of the informa- 
 tion gathered in the course of this preliminary edition, it has become clear 
 that r as the text which comes nearest to K must be made the basis of the 
 larger edition in preference to o which, though the older text, is (aside from 
 its bad orthography) in consequence of its propensity to condensation, ill- 
 suited for the purpose. As for the uf, the data so far accumulated show 
 that group to have been contaminated with the parallel recension of Origen; 
 its variants therefore belong into the apparatus: in so far as they are not 
 taken from Origen, they may exhibit readings of the K recension which 
 ascend to a parallel archetype, and here and there may be preferred to those 
 of the archetype of K and its consorts. Now, a case analogous to the 
 
The K Text of Joshua 25 
 
 K 164o [ev Trju/Of IrjX- aWa XI 
 
 15 [acr&Jiol fXQvrjv eve- 
 
 [7r/07;crjei/ i?" ,'Vai 14 
 
 [Traj/lra ra ckv- 
 \\a ai/r]?;!? Trpoeuo- 
 ^fiev^aav €avroi<; 
 20 [ot uiojt l7]\- avrov<; 
 
 >R 3L i 15 fiovr}V KrolL] + avT»7V S ' 16 -[Trpryo-jcv K] irpia^v R j 20 [oi] Krs]> 
 
 avTrjv Uf 17 [7raj']Ta] > iz [ 18/19 CTrpovo/ievcrav Z 19 eavTOts] avTOis f | 
 auTa)v]>omn 14 [ev Trjvpi ]>omn ; aAAa] 77X77^ omn 15 [ao-wp] j prm T-qv A 
 
 et sub i^- GS P.0V17V] + avTTqv <eA0A et sub •;^- G5 (A transponit avrr/v et 
 evcTrpT^crev) ^ 16 is A0AGSJ 17^ A B rell | 18 avrrj'; B rell] + Kat ra kxt^vi/ hA et 
 sub •)jC- GS 19/20 Trpoei'o/Aevcrav h^ ] eTrpovo/Aevcrav Bh* rell 19 eavrotsj 
 auTois A : > h 20 Ij;AJ + Kara to p-qfxa kv o everetAxiTo rw Iv [[tw Zij] Is A]] A 
 
 present I am in a position to adduce from an earlier passage in this book. 
 3:13 at the end r alone adds: a a' o-o^pos eis- 6' ao-Kwfjui ev. I have also 
 come across additions pecuUar to r which though introduced sine nomine 
 must be estimated in the same manner. Comp. 3: 16 aoLKrjTov (after apa/Sa). 
 On a different footing, however, stands eroiixwi ibid., 17 wliich is extant in 
 UF hkewise. ck in a"s rendering is e\-idently an error for ein (comp. 5"°;. 
 On the other hand, a' is fuller in r than in &'^. 6' (comp. S"*) is not quoted. 
 There still remains a parallel anonjinous rendering (eo-rcoo-as t-m tw divwv 
 avTwv) which all the K texts (except 1L) present as the second element of 
 the doublet which is peculiar to the recension. Origen, on the other hand, 
 proceeded in his usual mechanical manner by introducing from the parallel 
 version just referred to the last word sub ast; the result (ras K€x<j^fJMTia- 
 fievas avTwv) is awkward enough. What is the Greek for disruptas 3L ? || 
 14 ev TTvpL K a singular reading. There is nothing in il?"" to correspond to 
 it 15 Tr)v Origen sub ast (hence not in A0j expresses nx avr-qv (s, uf, 
 Origen sub ast, but also A0) expresses the suffix in r;~2b 16 ts both recen- 
 sions (also A0) ^il?-"; h'jX. B texts I, 17 In iz condensation 17/18 All the 
 texts express -bbz in the place of -b.<r> 2'^"~ bbl' 18 n*^~zm 
 was supplied by Origen sub ast (hence its omission in A0) 19/20 On 
 Trpoevofxevaav and eTTpovofjievaav see Helbing, 79 20 The addition in Origen 
 comes from 8 : 27 awrots in all the texts is, according to ^laes, an old error 
 for avbv^ — avOpwTTovi 20 ff. The omission in iz is one of their extreme cases 
 
26 
 
 The American Journal of Semitic Languages 
 
 1646 
 
 K 164a [^XodplevaeiJ i^ avat- XT 
 
 Tpajt'] ev arofxa- 
 \ti |t]^ou9- eft)? 
 25 I ajra^Xea-ev avrovi 
 ov KareXwrrev e- 
 ^ avTcov ovSeva 
 evTTveovTa- ^'ov 15 
 
 rpOTTOV (TVV€Ta- 
 
 5 ^ev «<? fiavari to) 
 TratSi auTOf /cat 
 fi,(ov(Tri<; (ocravra)^ 
 
 €V€T€L\arO TO) 
 
 ti)* Kai i§ ouTft)? 
 
 O I 21 e^w- Ks] £^0- ro I 22/23 avai[pa>vj KrIL] avepwv o:>S I 25 [a7rw]Aeo-ev 
 Krs] airoXecrev O : aTrcoXeo-ar it 
 
 1646 1 KareAeiTrev Kro] KareXtTrev S | 3 evirveovra Ks] e/u.7rveovTa ro j 5 -^ev 
 K] -$e R I fiwvar] K3L] yawo-r; r: tw /xwo-r; o: tw fjnovar] s | tw 2° Kro]>s | 7 
 /Awuo-r/s KslL] /Awo-r/s ro ] 7/8 wo-awws evcTCiXaTO Kos 3l]^r | 9 is ovtws Kr] 
 
 20 — 1646, 10 avTovi — e7rot770-€v]> iz | 25 -Xeaev ] -Xecrav Iptf 
 
 1646 1 KaTcXiTTCV Iptf] KareXiTTOV uiz j 5 to ] > Iptf | 9 ti outws ] 
 
 et sub ^ GS> I 22 -[XoOp^evaev AGS] pi. B rell 1 22/23 is avaipwv]>omn | 
 
 24 £a>s>ai A ! 25 [a7ra>]X£0-£v BAAGS] pi. he© 
 
 1646 1 KaTcXeiTrev] pi. omn | 1/2 e$ Bh (cf. eS) ]>rell | 2 avrw] sub - 
 G& 1 2/3 ouSeva evTTveovTa] ov8e ev efx-irveov [[ovSe €v]ov8ev A]] B rell 5 fiayva-r) {p-wcrr] 
 G) ]prm Toj BhA0AG \ Ta)l>h ; 6 H ! KaijXeAGS 2/3 /xwvo-tjs 
 (oo-avTws cvcTfiXaTO BhA0]^AG (/icocTr/s) S | 7 wo-avTCL)sl>e \ 9 lii h©AG] 
 
 of condensation ii 22, 25, 1646, 1. 1 The three verbs are consistently singu- 
 larized in Kr (is is added as an exphcit subject after the first, so also ILuf 
 which therefore singularize the first verb), and just as consistently plural- 
 ized in hC®; all the other texts are inconsistent in their choice of number '1 
 22/23 avaiptov to which nothing corresponds in Ii?™ only in the K recension 
 
 1646 1/2 (ti) avtwv not in |i?'"; obelized in Origen | 2/3 ov8eva eixirveovTa 
 characteristic of the K recension || 7/9 Origen (not followed by A0) adopted 
 the Hebrew order ' 9/10 On the other hand, here only the K texts deviate 
 from the Hebrew order 11 pr)fjui = '^'2'l was added only by the K recension i 
 13/14 Origen, followed by A©, altered the text to accord with ri^TT mii 
 
The K Text of Joshua 27 
 
 K I64b 10 eiroiricrev ov ira- XI 
 
 pe^j] ovOev pT]fia 
 
 UTTO TraVTCOV (OV 
 
 crvv€Ta^ev avTCO 
 
 15 Bei/ i? TTuaav ttjv 
 
 yrjv Tr]<; optvr]<i' 
 
 Kai iraaav T-qv yr] 
 
 vaye^^- kul iraad 
 
 TTjV yrjv €V T(0 vo- 
 20 Tft) • Kai iraaav ri] 
 
 ^5L 10 ov Kr] prm et ^ \ 11 ovOev Ks] ovSe tv to 13 awera^ev Krs] 
 crwcTa^e O ai'Tw Kr] illis 3!- 14 iJ.wvar]<; Ks IL] iJ.wari<; ro •^ Kr | 16 Trj^ 
 opLVT]? Ivro] TT/s opeiVT]'; s: rrjv opuvqv ^ IS vaye/? Kro] vaye^ s: ev aye/8 ?!. 
 18/20 Kttt — voTU) Kro]>S 3L | 19 vo- Kr] vw- o 'lO-Traaav Ks 3L]>ro j 21 yo^ofx 
 
 •^Vf i 11 -p£/3r?] + Is iz j 14 ^ ul IS i'aye(3] prm Tr}v viz iraaav] > Z | 
 19 ev] prm t-qv UF ; 20 iraaav ] > z 20 21 rrjv yqv] > z | 21 yo^o/i.] yoaofx 
 
 L-qaoL BA ' 9/10 Is ouTws e-Tronjaev]-^ omn 11 pT;/Aa]>omn | 13 
 
 avvtra^ev B rell] everetAaro h 13/14 uvru) jxoivarj^ Bh(£Aj ks tcu fjnovarj (/JLwarj 
 G) A®GS> I 14^ BhA0G 15 Trao-av J prm Tr,v A et sub •:>(• GS I t77v]>AS ] 
 16 yyjv] + TavTr]V A et Sub -^jC* GS j ttjs op(e)Lvr]'i h] ttjv opuviqv B rell 17 
 Trao-av] prm t7?v AS et sub v^- G tt;v]>AS 1 yj^V] beA0AG]>BS : + 
 T-qv A IS vaye^ hA0j aSe/3 BC : veye/3 AG(S) [ lS/20 Kat — votw h] 
 
 rrr - rii^ 1^"; whereas <5 (B texts, K texts) read -"1"- imii 15 On ttjv 
 see above on 161o, 4-6 16 Ta^'r77v = ^^^T^ added by Origen sub ast ' 
 <§ probably wrote r-qv opeivrjv; see above (ibid.) ' 17 as line 15 y-qv properly 
 omitted in B; it is simply a faulty repetition of T-qv I 18 The corruptions of 
 mye^ admit of easy explanation: in B(&, the initial v dropped out by hap- 
 lography (after rrjv iyrjv)), just as in 3L after ev (its text therefore read ev vaye/8, 
 comp. ev TO) voroi); the change of y into S (B<Cj is due to an intermediate t 
 (comp. h 166a, 19/20); on the other hand, the interchange of 6 and /3 
 (through the medium of ^) — comp. vaye^ s — is an error of sound which may 
 be paralleled elsewhere, comp. 165o, 1. 3 x^^P^fi ^'^ for x^^epeO. Observe 
 veye/8 AG a more modern pronunciation than vaytft (also A0j 18/20 The 
 parallel rendering of z:.:ri br P^<^ in the K texts (all but sllj and h is 
 derived from a' a' (see 5"); see above on 161o, 4-6 20 The omission of 
 
28 The American Journal of Semitic Languages 
 
 K 164b yijv yo^OfJL^ Kat ira- XI 
 
 aav Ti]v 77; y /3e^- 
 aajx' ' Kai rrji/ ire- 
 
 8lV7]V' KUL T1]V 
 
 25 7r/309 Sv(r/jLat<i' Kai 
 165a afi/xcov ^Kai apa- 3 XII 
 
 /3a' €0)9 TTjf; 6a- 
 
 K] yolov r: yo{o)v o: yoa-ojx s: gesuni 51 | 21/23 Kat — ^tOaafx Kr]>II j 21/22 
 
 TTao-av Kro]>S j 22/23 (itdaafi. K] jStTcrav r : ^er^wav O : ye^crai/ S [ 25 8i;o-/Aats 
 Ks] 8vaiMi<; ro 
 kIL 165a 1-14 afjifiwv — ^ao-ya]>S | 1 afx/xtDv K] a/x,/xav ro iL i 4 Kara K] kut 
 
 Tjfi : yocrw/x Z | 21/22 iraaav rrjv yrjv ] > iz | jSedaafji] ^eOaav uiz : 
 fiaidaav f | 25 S. Kat [to opos IrjX] ] > z 
 UF 165a 1/2 appajia i I 5 rr^s] > iz j 5/6 da\a<T(n)<;] > 1 | 6 T7?s] > iz | 
 
 > B rell (cf. S™ Ulcu.Z jiJ^o wz]) [ 20 7rao-av]>h I 21 yo^oya] yo(ro/x 
 B rell : yoo-ov G(^l.^ S) j 21/23 Kat — ySe^cra/i. h] > B rell | ySe^cra/x ] 
 fieOaav h | 25 Sucr/xais] Sucr/xas ll 
 BChAQAGS 165a 1/2 apajia ] prin 7] AG ! 3 x^^^P^^ BhA] x^eweptO A©G : x^v^P^l^ 
 
 iraaav appears to be nothing recensional (KsiL have it against ro, uf against 
 iz, B rell against h) jj 21 On the variants of yoaov see above on 161a, 22/23 || 
 21-23 The K recension (all texts except IL) as well as h introduces a parallel 
 rendering of ycr«n V'^li^ 52 PU^I , that is to say, in reality a variant for 
 yoaov. s has preserved the genuine reading yeOaav which itself is probably 
 derived from yeo-ai/ (gesum ?l would then be a conflate of yecrap. and yoa-op.) 
 
 comp. ^^5>. As for the interchange of y and (i, comp, yt9r}X A 12, 6 
 (1666, 8) for fiS-qX. The scribes naturally enough adjusted the name to 
 that of Beth-sh(e)an 
 
 165a 1-14 The omission in s is inclusive of the following words which 
 
 precede (in the text of r) : Kat to rjixia-v rq^ yaXaaS Kat Tov ;^et/i,appow ews La/3oK 
 
 opLov vniiv. In this chapter (compare the other instances 23 — 1656, 7 and 
 1656, 23 — 166ff, 9; in the latter case the omission may be accidental, due to 
 homoioteleuton, but it serves the same purpose) s begins to manifest its 
 propensity to extreme condensation to which the geographical notices are 
 sacrificed; it reaches its climax in chapters 13-21 which are not only 
 abbreviated, but in part re-arranged in an order suitable to this process of 
 condensation. As an adequate impression of the procedure of this codex 
 
The K Text of Joshua 29 
 
 K 165a Xacrcri]^ ;;^ei'e/3€^' XII 
 
 Kara avaroXa^ 
 5 Kat e«»9 TTj<i 6a- 
 Xa(Tar]<i Tr]<; apa- 
 f3a OaXacra-q'i rw 
 aXfov airo avaro- 
 
 ro 
 
 6/7 apa(3a 
 
 Kro] papa iL 
 
 7 Ta)>] K]> 
 
 ro I 8 aXwv Kr] eXwv o : nachor 31 | 
 
 
 it^^ 
 
 : prm Kat 
 
 e 1 5/6 daXa<T(Tr}^]>e'^ \ 6 
 
 T7;s]>omn 
 
 7 ^aAaoro-iys] OaXaacra 
 
 cannot be obtained from the scattered variants in Parsons' apparatus, it is 
 advisable to present here the aspect in toto. 13 ^ Kat is Trpecr/^vrepos irpo- 
 
 f3e/3r]KO}'s rjfJ.€pwv • Kat enrev ks irpos tv ■ lSov yeyr^paKas crv ■ Kat r] yrj vrroXeXuTTTaL 
 ttoXXt] €ts K\rfpovo/xtav ttoXXt] crt^oSpa • aA.A.a StaSos avrrjv rats (^vXiwi Tov IrjX 
 ets KXrjpovofxiav • ov Tpoirov eveTeiXafjirjv (rot • '^ Kat 8t€p,eptcrei' ts rijv y^jv ravT-qv ev 
 KXyjpovofxia rats evvea <^uAats • Kat tw 77p,tcret </)dA7/s fxawacrcrr] airo rov lopSavov • 
 ews Tv/s daXaacrrji tt}^ fX€yaXiq<; Kara SvcrpMS r]X.LOv eSwKev avrrjV -q Oakaacra -q 
 p^iyaXr] optet ■ 14 ^eowKC yap fiwvcrrj? rats 8uo cf>vXai<; Kat tw rifJua-u (f>vXr)^ 
 fxavaaarj awo tov Trs.par tov lopSavov Kat 13 '^rr/ <fivXrj XtvL • ovk eSoJKe [xoivar]? 
 KXripovopLiav • k^ o 0<i IrjX avros KXrjpovo/xva. avTwv ■ KaBw^ eXaXrjcrev avrots • 
 14 ^ort r^trav ot vtot iwcrrjcfy p.avaa(rr} Kat e</>patp, 8uo <f)vXai- kul ovk cSoOt] /xepis 
 €v T7). yrj TOis vtots XevL • a\X r] TroAets KarotKetv ■ Kat ra ae^wptcr/teva af rats " 
 Kat TOts KTrjveaiv avTtov ■ ^ ov Tpoirov everetAaTO ks toj pnnvcnq • otjtojs tiroiiqaev 
 ts o Tou rav77 ■ Kat eXea^ap o tepeis ' Kat ot ap^i^ovres t(dv Trpiwv Ton' <f)vXo)v vlmv 
 lr)\- - KUTa Kkrjpov^ (.KX-qpovofx-qcrav rai^ tvvta </)i'Aats • Kat tw ry/xtcret (f)vXr]<; ^utto 
 TOV Tvepav tov topBavov * Kat €p,epto-avro rr^v yr;!/ -^"^^ 18 ^ Kat e^eKKkrjaiaadr) Tracra 
 o-i'i'ayajy77 vtojv t?^A £ts (rrjXMp, • Kat eTrrj^ev CKet tt^v (XKrjvrjV tov fxapTvpLOv • Kat 77 
 yv; €KpaTr]Bq vtt avTwv ■ 15 Kat KaT^Kkrjpovofxrjcrav vioi lOvSa Tracras ras TroAets 
 auTojv • Kat ras KWfjui^ avTwv ■ kcitu ra opta avToiv ■ Kara Brjixovs avTwv ep^epicravTO 
 T-qv y-qv 16 ojo-aurws Kat ot I'tot uocrqcf> ec^patp, Kat pxivaaa-q ■ Kara S-qp-ov; 
 avTojv • KaTep.€piaavTO irao"as ras TroAets avTwv " Kat ras ku>/mx<; avTwv • Kara 
 ra opta avTuiv 17 ^Kat rw o-aATraa8 vto) oc^ep • ovk -qcrav avTOi vlol' akk -q 
 ^T'yarepes • ** Kat tfTTiqcTav evojTTtoj/ eAea^ap rop tepews " Kat evavriov iv viov 
 vav-q • KUL evavTLOV rwv ap^i^ovroiv Aeyouo-at • o ^s everetAaro 8ta ;!(etpos p-wvar) • 
 Bovvai 7]p.LV Kkrjpovop.iav ev p.t(T(D rwv a8eA</>wv t^/aojv • Kat eSoOr) uvrais Kkrjpo^ 
 8ta Trpoo-rayp,aTos kv • ev rots a8eA(^ots aurtuv • ^r; 8e y?; yaAaaS '^eytv-qdrj 
 rots v'tots pxivaaar] rots KaraAeAetp.p.erots • 18 -"^ (as far as 8teAetv avrrjvj 
 
 8-lOa. 11 1 n 1- 10a. 17«. 24. 32. 40 \ ■ S "- ?■ 
 
 iy Kat €KAr)poooTr]arcv aurovs ts Kara 07/p,ovs avrwv • Kara 
 
30 The American Journal of Semitic Languages 
 
 K 165a \(ov oBou Trjv XII 
 
 10 Kara eKjxoiOa' 
 
 UTTO Oaifxav Kai 
 
 OTTO VOTOV VTTO a- 
 
 arjScod' TTjV Ka- 
 
 10 CKfiwOa Kr] CKfjLwd H : eK/Juada O ! 11 airo Kro] vtto 1L | 6aLfJM.v K] 6efmv roil 
 I 11/12 Ktti — VOTOV Kro]> 3L j 12 votov Kr] i/wtou o 1 12/13 axrrjSaiO KrlL] 
 
 10 eK/xwda ] KeSfxoid \ 11 datfmv Itfz] ^e/iav upi | 14 (fxLcrya ] afftaya iz ] 15 top] 
 
 G: daXaaaav B rell | 9 rrjv B rell] rjvh* {riqv h^, r superscr) 1 10 Kara CK/xw^a] 
 Kara aaeifioid B: kut acn/xoyd A: Kara laLfiwd h*(KaTa ^idcnfxoid h-)0 : Kara 
 ^rjOaa-LfjLwO A : Kara firid(j<.LfJiU)6 G: Kara firjOaa-ifJiOiv S |11 otto] vtto A0 : prm 
 Kttt AGS ; 11/12 Kai ttTTo vorov] Kaiairo votwv h ( = tr' S™) : > rell | 12 vtto] prm 
 Triv omn \ 12/13 aa-qSwO A0] ?2|-a.1 S : /jLeaiSwd A : fji.r](Tr]B(j)0 G : ix-qhuiO B(£: 
 
 ra opta avrtov ■ Tracras ras ttoAcis aurcov ■ Kat Tracras ra? kw/lius aurwv • ''^ Kai 
 tTTopevdrjaav cfi/SaTrjaai rrjv yrjv ■ Kara ra opta aurwv • *^'' *' (with hav, keaefi, 
 Xe(T£/xSav)-*'« 20-21 '-^" *' '^^'' *- '*"««-'' «-*^ '"-••". By means of this singular 
 condensation, the scribe saved himself the work of reproducing the 
 troublesome geographical notices and hsts of place names. Whether we 
 are dealing here with a recension, it is difficult to tell. So far as the prin- 
 ciple of condensation goes and especially the turning of the imperative 13 : 7 
 into an aorist, Gaster's Samaritan Joshua presents a certain analogy. I 
 beheve, however, that the scribe of s had before him a Greek text which he 
 manipulated to suit his own bent of mhid 1 afx/jxiv ro?L modernizes the 
 name; but K shows that the archetj^pe read correctly afjLfxwv Origen in- 
 serted 7) to express the Hebrew article (n) 3 For an explanation of the j3 
 in ■)(€v(.pt(i <£f'' see above on 1646, 18. All texts express n""" for mil" • 
 The double v is, of course, correct - 6 rr;s characteristic of the K texts, but 
 omitted again in iz !i 6^7 pa/?a IL see on 1616, 18 7 ^oAao-o-a or ^aAao-o-av 
 loose construction; it is corrected in the K texts 8 va-)^wp IL admits of an 
 explanation: the initial v is dittographed after rwv; x i^ ^^ error for A 
 (a notable example of this interchange underlies the "seven rivers" of <£''' 
 
 16:3=, not CTrra TTOTUfjiOi Dillmann, but eirra x^Lix[appoL] = eTTTaXu/J. for 
 
 aTTTakcLfi B; <5, of course, wrote laTrAaret (comp. TrraAt/i, C after opia; hence 
 lairroA-ctp. preceded the reading u.7rTa\afi.) = 'dbZ' ', the Palestinian texts 
 vary between u<f>aK6L (A0), read i£<^Au^i, hence nearly with the same vowels 
 as B, but in accordance with the later pronunciation £ is expressed by <^ 
 which perhaps induced the substitution of ^for r, and ie0A.7;ra = -'Cib£" M""); 
 
The K Text of Joshua 31 
 
 K 165a ra ^acrya- * Kai 4 XII 
 
 15 Opiov wp' ^aaiXe- 
 
 ft)9 ^aaav o? Kare- 
 Xeicpdi] €K TCOV 
 pa(f)aeiv o kutoi- 
 
 aaiSoiO o I 13/14 rrjv Kara Kro]>lt | 14 •[ r | 14/17 Kai — KaTeXeiffyOr] Kro ] kul 
 Tov toy (3a(rtXea (3a(ruv o? KureAcK^^r; S : kul coy jSacrtXcvi ^acrav KaTe\€L<f)dr} iL | 
 15 wp K] wy r3L I 15/16 ySacriAews Kr] jSaaLXei O [ 17 -Xu(ji6-q Ks] Xtcfidr} r: 
 -Xr]<pOr] O I 18 pa^auv K5t] pa(f>av ro: yiyavTwv S | 20 eS/aaetv Ks] eSpatv r: 
 
 wy I 18 pa<f>a€iv ] yiyavTtov [18/19 o KarotKtov] 09 KarwKet ] 20 eSpaifi u] 
 
 /xrySwy h | 13/14 Tryv KaTa]>omn | 14 <^a(rya] prm Kat <£ ' 1[ BllA© 14-1656, 
 17 Kat — fjiavaa(Tr)]>h 15 opiov S"] opta A et sub v^- G : >BS rell toy 
 omn [ 15 /3ao-tA€tos AG (= 01 y' sec S"") ] fSaa-tXedw; G : I3acn\€v<i B rell i 16 
 yStttrav] (3aaa B [ os (i!JAG5]>B rell i 16/17 KaTeX€i(f)dr}] vTrtXecffiOri (vTroXiffiOr) 
 G) omn 18 pacftaeiv { — (t' sec S™ >c-»j^S) ] yiyavTtov Omn j 19 acrrapuiO B rell] 
 
 the final p stands for v, exactly as 17:11 /xayeSScop A stands for puayShmv, 
 and conversely 12, 23a tXhiap. B is corrupted from e^oip (comp. evStov h and 
 eScop e) II 10 ni-w'Ti ri"n is faithfully reproduced in GAS ( f3r)0aa€i/xw6 A, 
 
 l3r]dacrLfjMv = /3r]9aaLiJ.(L = I3r]6aaiij.w6 &. /3r]6(TeLfJ.o>6 G) COmp. also jiiOcnfJUiiO h^ 
 
 = ^rjOatiMwO) : in the B and K texts n"3 is wanting, either originally, or 
 through haplography after Kara (the element is universally extant in the 
 parallel passage 13:20). As for the second part corresponding to r\T2 -TI , 
 the readings of the B texts and of A® are tolerabl}^ correct; not so those of 
 the K texts which vary between ckimmO (thus apparently the archetype read 
 with li) and Ke8fj.o}6 uf. kcS- may represent a miswritten I3ed-; but ek- 
 remains a puzzle; contrast 13:20 11 vtto A© is an error for aTro. Kai of 
 Origen = 'i l^"* 11/12 KrouF and h introduce a doublet which, according 
 to S™, comes from a-' I 12 rrjv which the K texts excise treats '131 mn as 
 an imphed relative clause I 12/13 The correct aayjhoiO in the K texts and in 
 A©; firjSwd B {fjir)8wv h = fjir]8(I) = ixr]8ii)0) comp. vs. 8 A which it is not easy to 
 account for; a conflation of the two readings underlies /xrjo-rjBwd (/xecriSto^) 
 GA; on 50,^1 S see above on 161fl, 6; note that in 13:20 G reads aaSo) jj 
 13/14 Tr)v Kara the K texts (except 5L) 14 ff. The omission in h apparently 
 due to homoioteleuton 15 The word blZI* which is represented both in 
 the K recension (not 11) and in Origen (not &^) was wanting in ?^s; <S 
 accordingly took J^" as subject and □"J^S'^n "Tl"- as predicate, a sort of 
 circumstantial clause; Origen, even though, according to some copies (*'), 
 
32 The American Journal of Semitic Languages 
 
 K 165a Kwv ev aarapooO^ XII 
 
 20 Kai ev ehpaeiv 
 
 'ap^cov airo opov; 5 
 
 aepp-cov KUL airo 
 aeXKa • kul iraarj'i 
 Ti-I<; Kara ^acrav 
 
 edrain IL : aSpatv O \ 21 apx^v Kro] apxov S \ airo Kr] em IL 1 opovsKR] opiov 
 IL I 22 acpjxwv Ks] Bcpfxwv ro : ep/^wv ?L i 22/23 Kai a-n-o o-eAKfx K] KUL airo aeXxu 
 
 [[(TcXx*^' s]] r: ei /osf/o (cum s inscr.) IL | 23-1656, 7 mt- €o-e/3wv]>s , 23 
 TTttO-ets O I 24 Kara fiaaav Kr] KarajSacrccos O : /Saaav IL 
 
 eSpaiv IptF ! 23 creA/<a ] (r€A;(a | 24 Kara] > UF 
 
 aaOapoiO G j 20 eSpaeiv B rell] eSpaet G : aSpat A : eveSpaeiv € ! 22 aep/xwv] 
 ^-li:,.- S 22/23 airo aeXKa Kai]>G aeXKa] aeXx"- ^^ '■ ao-eXxa A : crepxa ®: 
 acKxaL B<e 23/24 TTuo-rj? rr/?] Tracrav (aTracrav G) rrjv Omn j 23 11 A | 24 Kara] 
 
 >omn 
 
 he left the current text intact, at least introduced a relative, which, of 
 course, became a necessity in the K recension as well as in GA; the intro- 
 duction of the relative should, wheresoever blZj had been ignored, have 
 necessitated placing *,'-"- "^ the accusative (comp. vs. 2); this was actually 
 done by s, but a trace thereof remains also in G, the scribe at first starting 
 to write the accusative and then correcting himself; the texts incorporating 
 optov or opia naturally wrote the genitive; the latter, according to <S''", was 
 found in the three; hence it is from them also that the noun determined by 
 it came i\ 16/17 KaTtXu^Br) is pecuhar to the K texts |j 18 pacf)aeiv of KroU 
 was written, according to S™, by a'. Observe the misspelling common to 
 ro which is not shared by the uncial (or IL) . Hence in such matters the 
 agreement of ro is no guarantee of correctness f 19 ao-rapo)^ with t is 
 apparently the older method of transliteration; comp. the much older 
 aarapTT] where the second r is treated like the first; G modernizes |1 20 <S 
 in all likelihood wrote tSpuei,- a supposed stroke of abbreviation over the 
 final letter caused the pluralization at the hand of later scribes, e is better 
 attested than u. In tlie Greek underlying (ft «/ was dittographed ji 21 All 
 texts ignore 1 %}'" I The nominative was suffered to stand by s; by attrac- 
 tion to the relative clause I aTro is probably an old error for ein (IL; !L omits 
 the second airo) ; while the K recension consistently carries on the genitive 
 construction, the other texts continue 11. 23/24 with the accusative !1 
 22 Another instance where ro share an error; the archetype was certainly 
 
The K Text of Joshua 33 
 
 K 1656 eft)? T(ov I opiQ)v^ XII 
 
 rcov yep ^jeai /cat] 
 Tov /u-a^l aOi Kal^ 
 Tt]<i i'ax[t fcai Tou] 
 5 ri/jLiaovi ^jaXaaS^ 
 opiou ai]\a>u ySacri-] 
 
 1656 2 Twv Ko]>r | yep'^yeo-t] Kro] yapyaai, H | 3 fjua-^adi Kr] fxa)(a6r) O: 
 
 niachit 3L | 3/4 Kat tt^s va^'tj Kro]>1l [ 4 xat Kro]>lL | 4/5 [tov rjfXLa-ovi 
 
 1656 1 T0Ji']>UF j 2 Tcov]>Z I yepyecrtv UF | 3 iJia)(a6t] /xaA^a^i 1 | 4 i'a;^t] 
 
 1656 1 Ta)v]>omn | 2 Ta)v]>omn j yepfyeo-t] = yepyeo-et Bat] yeaovpt A®: 
 ytaovpf. A : yeao-oijpe G : il.*-^. S j 3, 4 tov sive rr^s] ttji'] omn j 3 p,a;>^[a^i] = 
 /xa;)(u^(e)i AG : ^ nSSi ? S : /juxo-tl A© : iJxi)(aT C : p,tt;(€t B j 3/4 Kai rr;? 
 
 i/u;^i]>omn I 4/5 tod 7;/xtcroi)s] to rj/Mcrv omil | 6 optoD <£] optwv B rell : prm 
 
 an uncial Ij 22/23 The omission in G due apparently to homoioteleuton !! 
 23 o-eA/ca might be original with its k, but it is confined to K; in 0, A 
 became p through mishearing (similarity of sound) ; aeKxm B<t goes back to 
 o-txx^i- iind that to o-eAxfu (another instance of the interchange of A and x) ; 
 we may even go further and say that <& wrote o-eAxa (comp. 13:11 a^a B 
 after £ws = creAxa), the t was joined to a by reason of the following Ka: ; fosga 
 IL (with inserted s) = c^aya (with spirantic y, hence) = </)ttxa = ^axxo- = </>aA.xa 
 
 = ^aAx"- = eaAxtt = o-aAxu (in 13:11, however, IL has eo-xa r. o-eAxa) Ij 24 Kara 
 
 pecuhar to Kro 
 
 1656 2 "iVr"i yeo-oDpet (or ytcrcrovpu, with a dittographed, or with 
 inner-Greek doubhng, or with inorganic Semitic doubUng, comp. riiiib , 
 ,—4^ , )_*J , fi(.<j<jta<i, etc.) was written by Origen (here GA have faultily e 
 at the end) and adopted by A0 (13:2 ©^ placed p over the word apparently 
 as a reminder of the other reading) here and 13:2. 11. 13a (136 G reads 
 correctly yeo-o-oDp = "i^;^"3 1?™); the kolvt) readings oscillate between yepyeo-t 
 (yapyaai) — SO here all (yepyeo-tv UF originated in the same way as eSputv out 
 of eSpat, see above 165a, 20), and 13:2. 11 the r texts (including IL in vs. 2, 
 but yea-rjpL in VS. 11) — and yeo-(o-)etpet (with itacistic variations; also yao-ipt), 
 the former by confusion with "i:P3 (comp. Euseb.: uvty] 8e co-ti yapyao-ei), 
 the latter = ""^-'^rii !i 3, 4 The genitive of the K texts expresses the sense of 
 ll?-" correctly (observe the ^ with "rij3:7^ri1), or in consistency with the 
 construction above 165a, 23; at all events ® placed a stop after """iVw:! and 
 took "nD>"jri''i over to the following which together the translator made 
 
34 The American Journal of Semitic Languages 
 
 K 1656 \em eae [^cov:] XII 
 
 TTUfi lev [/cat ot] 
 10 viOL IrjX' e[7raTa^e] 
 
 avTOV^- /cTateSct)-] 
 
 /cey auTr?^!' />tft)-j 
 
 var}<; ev [/cXr^pco] 
 
 Tft) (0OU/87;[v kul] 
 15 Tft) 7aS' /cTat Tcol 
 
 rj/xiav (f)^vXr}<;^ 
 
 /jiavacrar][: ' /catl 7 
 
 OuTOi oi /3[ao-tXet9l 
 
 Tcoi' a/jL^oppaicov^ 
 
 Kro] TO rjfjuav It I 5 yaXaaS Kr?i.] yaAaS O | 6 opiov Kro] optwv It | o-r/^wv] Kr 
 IL] (Tiwv o ! 7 ea£[fioiv] K3L] co-cre^wv ro | 8 1[]>r | tovtous Kr]>^ | fjnaa-rj's 
 ro I 9 ot K]>0 I 10 c[7raTaie] Kr] eirraiav OS | 11/12 eStoKC o ' 12/13 fj.uiarj'i 
 ro I 14 Toj Kro] rots viois ^ : >s [ 16 rjfjuav Ko] rjfjivcn r: rjfjiuaeL s | 17 
 fjXLvaaarj Kl'o] ixawatra-q S^ j \ r 1 19 afjiwpaKDv S | 20 avT^Aev O j 21 oi]>o | 
 
 va^^i U : avva^^di f : o-wtt;^t Z : uva^Orj i | 8 ^]]>ul | 9 o Trat? ki;]>Z | oi]>i | 
 10 CTraTa^aj/ UF I 11 uvrovsj^z [ 12/13 /aidvcttj? ei'KAi7pa>]^z lA pov/3{€)tfi 
 
 cws A et sub v^c GS | criwv G (^=-*»^» S) j 7 -Aews B rell] w sup ras A*'' 
 (-AcDS A*'°''*) 1 8 Toi)rous]>omn | yawo-Tjs G | 10 e-n-aTu^av omn I 12/13 fxwarr)<; 
 G : + o Trais Kv A et sub -x- GS j 13 KXijpw A®] KX-qpovo/xia B rell ' 14 rw] 
 >omn I pov/3r]X (St& j 15 tco l°]>omn i 16 rjfjuav G] TjfXLaei B rell i 17 ^ 
 
 dependent on h'Z'2 under the force of the Q in the first half of the verse || 
 T^-"'! fJuix('^${e)L or fuixaTt, the latter in the B texts and It in ch. 13, and 
 in A© here (but machit 3L is apparently corrupt, possibly a conflate; see 
 further on) ; here B (but not (£) reads /taxet which I take to be a corruption 
 from pxixOl= T\Z^'2 • This B reading is introduced in the K texts (except 
 3L ; unless machit is a conflate of niachati and machi) as a parallel (doublet) ; 
 further below (22/23) where the clause is repeated (perhaps from the margin 
 of the archetype; then inserted in the wrong place as so often with marginal 
 notes) the spelling is vaxoi in Kr, /xu;(aj in IL, vaOi in iz, but i/a^^t uf exactly 
 as is read in u here) ; of course, v stands for p. !j 6 Note how the manuscripts 
 divide in an arbitrary fashion on the question of number ' ews A and sub ast 
 GS (so Lagarde's codex; there is no reason why the obelus should be 
 
The K Text of Joshua 35 
 
 K 1656 20 ov<; av€i[\€v l^ ] XII 
 
 KUL 01 VLoll ir^X € 1 
 
 TO) 7repa\v rov t-l 
 ophavov [/cat T779I 
 va-^^of K^ai Tovl 
 166a [r]fjnao]v'i yaXaaB 
 
 \^7rapa Oa^Xaaaav 
 [aTTO ^a^aXyaB ev 
 [t&) TrelStft) Tov 
 5 [XtySaz^Jof Kai ecu? 
 
 23-166fl, 9 Ktti- etpa]>s 1 23 ttjs Kro] ev IL j 24 vaxoi Kr] yax>; o: macho H | 
 24 — 
 
 166a 1 TOV r]/xiaov<;] to -qfjuav IL [ 1 rjixvaovi o 2 TrapaOaXaaatos O \ 3 airo 
 (SaaXyaS Kro] balladon IL 5 KatK3L]>ro I 7 [xeA>x I^o] c/icZgra IL 8/9 o-?/- 
 
 Upz : povfSiv Itfi ' Kai]>Z ' 12 ^ r 22 rov]>Z ' 23 rr7?]>f | 24 vaxoi] vadi \Z\ 
 
 vaxOi rell 
 
 166a /ScuiXyaS U^ Itfz] jSaAyaS U* : yoaAyaS i ! 4 Tou]>f , 6 tou 1°]>UF | 
 BI1A0G I 19 Twv afxoppaiwv BaJ^"^ rell] T7;s yi?s S 20 is SUp ras A*' (fjuovarj^ 
 
 ^*fort) , 23 — 
 
 166a 1 -Ktti — yttAatt8]>omn ] 2 ^aAacrcrav] prm T7/V A 3 a7ro]>onill I 
 yQaaAyaS ©AGS (r^^i^^) ] /?aAya8 A : /3a\aya8 € : /JaAayaSa B : yaAoaS h | ' 
 ev B rell] ews h^ ! 4 tw A©AGr]>B ■ 4/5 toi; Xl/Suvov B«ehA©AG5] AiySavw 
 
 adopted with Maes, the word not being found in the Kotv-q texts), hence ?l?" 
 must have read ~>" , an error due to the aberration of the ej-e to blZI* 13? 
 above !| 7 K shows that ta-cjiwv with one o- is the correct spelling. e=— || 
 8 TovTovi the K texts (all except E) resumptive Ij 9 Note condensation in z !| 
 10 The plural should be restored also in Kr 'i 13 The second riin* "23-" 
 only in Origen KXrjpoi all the K texts and A© is certainly to be rejected in 
 favor of KXiqpovoiJLui B rell ; KX-qpo^ = 5^13 , and K\r]povo/j.La = n iljl"' 11 
 14/15 ":n^5^ , ^i:< , © did not express the gentilic 16 rffitav is not mi's- 
 wTitten for j^/xto-et; the difference is grammatical, see Helbing, 51 i, 19 '.""^xri 
 only in S; all the other texts express "T^sn 
 
 166a 3 aTTO was wanting in (S; apparently "2 was missing in I&k; for the 
 translator's exegesis comp. note on 1616, 24/25 Restore /SoaAyaS every- 
 where; yaAaaS li (comp. youAyaS i) for ^aXaaS, see above on 1646, 21/23; 
 
 )SaAAaStov 3L is gen. plur. of /SaXXaSa, comp. ySuAayuSa B = ;SaaAyaS 5 Kai 
 
36 
 
 The American Journal of Semitic Languages 
 
 K 166a 
 
 10 
 
 15 
 
 Tov op^ov^ rov 
 ■X^eX ] €')(' ' ava^ai- 
 vovT^wv ei<i arj- 
 etpa'l Kai eSooKe 
 avTrj]v Is Tat9 (f)v- 
 Xai9 ZI77X' K\r]po- 
 vofieUv Kara 
 KXr]p^ov avrcov 
 ^ev TO)] opi' Kai €v 
 TOO TrelStw Kat 
 ev ap^a^w Kai e 
 
 XIT 
 
 [eipaj K] aeeipa r: acrjpa o: seir IL j 9 ■] r | eSwKC O ! 10 \avTriy KrlL] avroLS 
 O 1 rots I 11 -Arjs O | 11/12 kAi7/)oJ^vo/x€i]v Kro iL] KXrjpoi'O/XLav S 13 [KXrjp'ov 
 Kr 11] KXr]po)V s: KXrjpovofitav O 14 o/3t K] opet R 15/21 Kai. — 7reSto>]>S ; 16 [cv] 
 
 7 [x^^J^X ^^ Ix^^^X ^P^- X^'^^/"' ^- X'^'^^X ^ ' ^/^ oretpa UF I 11/12 KXr]povop.iav 
 
 B*'"^ 6 TOV 1°]>A0 i TOV 2° A©AG]>Bh ! [xeA]ex ] x^-^X" ^ : x^Aku h : 
 XaAcK (s. x^Xex) ^''^ • aXoK A©AG : ■ iii Ns S> ] 8/9 ets (TTjetptt] €is creupa A©G: 
 eis (TTjetp B(C : o-vyetp h : aaaeeupa A : i.*.".ifl.l:^ S ] 10 avT7]V hGJA©A] aurov BG^S j 
 11/12 KXrjpo[voix€]Lv Bh] KXr]povop.tav rell j Kara [kAtjp] ov uvtwv B rell] 
 
 which ro alone omit was certainly present in the archet^TDe of KrolL l| 
 7 pbrn Origen wrote aaXuK or aAaK (without the Hebrew article) (hence 
 
 ' T T IV 
 
 A©), read in AG A© aAaK for aXoK, comp. 11:17 aAaK A aaAaK GA©; &, on 
 the other hand, wrote (a)xeAK or (a)xeAeK = p;:r;(ri), comp. a' /xepi^ovros: 
 11:17 axeA (axaiA) BiChRUF "n-ith final k dropped in front of Kat, here x^Akc 
 hlL (!L with y in the place of k) and (with k assimilated to x) X^'^X'^ B, a in 
 either case dittographed (the next word begins in a), x^^^^X ^^^^ (x^'^^X ^P* 
 with faulty doubling, still more corrupt x^^^H- ^)} X^^^X ^ comp. x«AeK <£-'^ 
 II 8 acr- A = £s for tts; the word is missing in h | 8/9 While B(£li1l comp. S 
 correctly ignore the locative element already rendered ets, the other texts 
 include n " pleonastically in the transhteration ; r], of course, should be 
 
 restored everywhere 10 avT-qv refers back to 'i"n>5ri ; avrov clearly an error 
 
 in spite of the variant reading there, since the plural is used for the latter 
 in Greek ]| 11/12 KrolL go with Bh l| IB KXrjpoi'ofxui o deviates from its 
 archetype and is certainly \\Tong, even though KXrjpov is an inadequate ren- 
 dering of npbn". (a' cr' 8tatpeo-ets) ;, 16 There is room in K for ev, though 
 
The K Text of Joshua 37 
 
 K 166a \aar]B}(o6^ ' Kai e XII 
 
 [tt; eprj^^fiw Kai 
 
 I yoTft)]- KUL [ey] 
 20 {vaJ€^^'• Kai ev TO) 
 
 [ratov] Kai rov a- 
 Ifjioppa^Lov Kai TO 
 [')^ava^vaiov Kai 
 25 [rov (fi^epai^eov 
 1666 KOI Tov I evaiov'^ 
 
 Kai TOV le^ovaai- 
 
 K??L]>ro I 17 [a(r7?8>(? K] ao-q^uiB r: ahwO o: esehon H • Katl>o ' 18/19 Kai 
 \voTw\ Ivro]>?i- 19 vcoTw O \ 20 [vaye^Ji K] nosefe i. : aye/? o: ayeu r I 
 20 21 Kai — n-eSio) Kro]>i!. | 21-1666, 4 twv ;(erratwv ' Kai tojv a/jLoppaidtv ' Kai 
 Twv Yavavewv kul twv c^epe^ewv Kat rwv euaiwv tcov uf^ovaaLwv Kai twv yepye- 
 (ratwv O I 25 ^epe^atov r 24 — 
 
 1666 1 Kai — emiov]>S ; 3/4 Kat tov yepy€o-aiov]>?l "^ r OKatKRl>1L | 
 
 UF I 18/19 Kai voT<i) ] (yr? z) T-q irpo^ votov uf { 20 [vaye]/? Ipt] aye/3 ufi: 
 vaye^ Z | 21 TreSiio] + Kai ei' apa/Sa kul ev acrr]8w6 i I 21 — 1666, 4 tov ;(avavaiov 
 Kai TOV ;(eTTaiov • Kai tov ap,oppaiov Kai tov Kavavaiov • Kai tov (fitpet,aiov kul tov 
 €vaLOv • Ktti TOV yepyeo-atov Kai tov ie/3oi'craiov \[tov x'^^*^^"^'-'^^]^^ Kai l°-5°]> 
 fz I Ktti TOV yepyeo-aiov kui tov ie/?ot'0-aiov] > iz Kai 6°, 7°]>fj] 
 
 KaTeKkripovofJi-qaa' avTOv; <E ' 17 aa-qhwd B rell] p.-q'^wd A 18/19 Kai voT<i> (cf. 
 S" a' 0-' Ui^:^=) ]>omn I 19/20 ev vaye/3 G : ^ - ^1 ^ S (A=19 om Kai — 
 XeTTaiov. sed cf. 108, veye;8 108. Compl.) : evaye;S A© : vaye/3 Be | Kai ev 
 vaye/3] Ka<f)LaTc(3 ll 20/21 Kai ev tw TreSiw S Sub •)jC-]>B rell 
 
 1666 1, 2 emiov. ie|8oDO-aiov]-^e 3/4 Kai tov yepyeo-aiov]>Oinn 4 tov 
 
 ro omit it 17 aarjBwe See above on 16o5r, 12/13 'i eo-e^wv iL an error 
 18/19 Ktti voToj from a' a' (according to 5™) anticipates Kai ev vaye^, a 
 doublet peculiar to the K texts (all except IL) 20 For the corruptions of 
 vaye/3 See above on 1646, 18. Ka</>iaTe/3 h the three words run together with 
 corruptions 20/21 Kat ev tw TreStto KroUF is found also in S sub ast; either 
 repeated from above, hence i goes on still further; or, which is more likely, 
 read Kat ev rrj TreStvrj ]^->:' ^-°- s . see above on 1616, 22 ' 21 — 
 
 1666 4 UF deviate from the order found in all the others (which is that 
 of 1^™) in that they place ".yi^ at the head of the hst; nevertheless it is 
 
38 The American Journal of Semitic Languages 
 
 K 1666 ov Kai TOP jep- XII 
 
 yecracov 'Wov /8a- 9 
 
 5 StXea lepi^co kul 
 TOP fSaaiXea Trj<i 
 yaf 7) eanv TrXrj- 
 aiov ^aidijX' ^"kui 10 
 
 7 yai Kr] geth ?l | co-tl S | 8 (SaiOrjX Krs] fiedr]\ 3L I Kai Kr]>31 I 9 T(x)v s I 
 
 1666 4 Tov z] prm km ufi j 8 /SedrjX i | 10 tov fSa(TLX€a]>i | 14 Aaxj?s u | 
 
 prm /cat Bli © 1 post nomina oppidorum A et sub •>(• G S add eva | 8 (SaiO-qX] 
 
 repeated once more (in the form of Kammto?) in the place which belongs to 
 it !| 3/4 KM TOV yepyecruiov peculiar to the K recension (all except it; iz, 
 however, excise also /cut tov ttliovaaiov; note the inverted order in uf); 
 comp. Maes: "Monet hie Syrus in nonnuUis libris post tov teySouo-atov 
 adscriptum fuisse Kat tov yepyaa-aatov, sed hoc in Hebraeo non habetur" || 
 4 /cat Bhditufi an inferior reading, induced by the sequel l| 5 ff . Origen alone 
 added sub ast eva after each city name '\ The codices escape the tedious 
 repetition of Kat tov fiaaiXta with each new name in a variety of ways; some 
 begin condensing the text at an earlier, some at a later stage. It is safe to 
 say that these contractions do not go back to <5. As for B, its archetype 
 evidently had Kat in each instance (see below); moreover, ^aaiXca was 
 written compendiously ^a (see below) !| 10/11 (^aatXea xe/Spwv dropped out 
 in G through carelessness; the total was not affected, because G erroneously 
 treated x^PI^^^ ^^- ^^ ^^ ^^^ name of a city |i 12 3L alone reproduces nT-1^ 
 p?""; all the others presuppose n^'J"!"" or ri^"^"!"' or (if ov stands for w) 
 ni"-"''' li 15 "libltj-" , introduced by Origen into his text as eyAwv (hence A® 
 and also uf) in the place of the koivt] reading (as preserved in Bh€lL) atAa^; 
 the latter apparently meant to Origen a hopelessly corrupt form which he 
 could in no wise admit. Critically handled, atAa/A is equivalent to auyXa/x 
 (the spirantized y omitted; comp. 17:3 da 1L and y in eyAa sup ras B ?) 
 = aiyAav=eyAav. ^ which kept the KotFr; form added fSaaiXea gongola; 
 whatever the y {g) may stand for, oyyoAa is manifestly a corruption from 
 cyyeAa (comp. cyyeAa Compl. = nbr»y Jerem. 31 (78): 34; corrupted in the 
 
 codices as ayyeAta(v, s) = eyy£Ad = eyyeAav. S likewise adds: Kai eyAwyu,,- but 
 
 in the place of the Koivrj form, it reads with Kro o8oAfA)a/x. Here reveals 
 itself a substantial difference between Origen and the recension embodied in 
 Kr. a concordance of all the passages in which the name 'S'O'.'J occurs in 
 Joshua shows that, though the three gave a form corresponding to the 
 
The K Text of Joshua 39 
 
 K 1666 rov ^aaiXea IXrjjJi^ XII 
 
 10 Kai TOP ^acriXea 
 
 ')(^e/3pcL>v ^^ Kai TO 11 
 
 ^aatkea lepifiovd^ • 
 Kai rov jSaaCkea 
 
 Xa^^et?- ^' Kill Tov 12 
 
 15 fiaatXea oSoXafi^ 
 
 10 Kai KR]>iL 1 TOV l3a(nXea Kro1L]>s ! 11 Km Kn\>lL ' tov]>VO \ 11/12 
 TOV y8uo-tA.ea]>S | 12 lepifxovd Ks] cpL/xovO VO: upfjiOvO 1. 13 kui Kr]>1L | tov] 
 >ro TOV |SttO-iAea]>S 14 Kat]>»?L | Tov]>ro 14/15 tov /SacrtAca]>S | 15 o8o- 
 
 15 oSoAa/x] atyXwjU, UF: + Kat tov epifxovO iz [ 16 tov jSao-iAea] > fi | 17 ya^ep] 
 
 ytd'y]X A Kai]>omn 1 9 Tov]>Oinn I 10 Kat Tov]>omn ' 10/11 j3acnXea 
 ;(e^pajv]>G , 11 Kat Tov]>oiiin upifjiovO] upip.ov A : uip-qp-ovO <£ cf. icirimuth 
 Euseb "'" !j 13, 14 Kat rov] >omn \ 15 oSoXafj] atXa^i BhtfJ : eyAw/x AG: 
 
 Hebrew (comp. for 10:5 a' o-' 6' 85" et sine nomine 58"; for vs. 23 a a', 
 for vss. 34 and 37 a' S"; read, of course, everywhere eyAtuv), Origen con- 
 servatively retained the (5 reading oSoAAu/u,; that is to say, if GS may be 
 taken to represent the Hexapla (or Tetrapla, comp. the note in S at the end 
 of the book). A0 naturally followed Origen (in 10:37 there is an omission 
 in 0; comp. a similar omission in f). A doubt, however, may be raised as to 
 what Origen really introduced in his text on the ground of the marginal note 
 in 85 on 10:34 according to which both o' and a' read atyAw/x. This reading 
 is extant in 15 (atyAwr). 64. Aid. (uyAwv); and so also in vss. 5. 23; while in 
 vs. 3 aiyAco/A is found in the text of 58. It may therefore be argued that in 
 one form of his recension (possibly the Tetrapla) Origen was emboldened to 
 introduce the correction. Observe that in vs. 33 where 85 vindicates for o' 
 the reading opap. we find wpa/x (the better spelling) in 64. Aid. (comp. apap. 
 58 and the still more corrupt reading ^'in of 5). The entire subject, 
 however, cannot be prosecuted here at length. So much is certain that, 
 when Origen was forced to supply an omission, he unhesitatingly took over 
 from his source the Hebrew form of the place-name; so in 10:36 v^- avo 
 eyXwp.: GS, sine notis A (with the form eyAwvin 19. Compl.). Whereas 58 
 presents the doublet a-n-o utyAwp, ohoXXap., it is interesting to observe that in 
 he<=gRur the addition reads avo o8oAAu/x. Hence the other recension, while 
 adopting the same plan as did Origen with reference to supplying supposi- 
 tious lacunae in the current text, nevertheless held itself to the tenor of 6, 
 a critical procedure which must excite admiration. A0, while accepting 
 Origen's corrections, do not follow him in admitting asterisked additions. 
 
40 The American Journal of Semitic Languages 
 
 K 1666 KaL Tov ^aaiXea XII 
 
 ya^ep' ' ^^Kairov 13 
 
 ^aaCKea Sa/Setp' 
 Kai TOV /SaaiXea 
 
 Xxifi Ks] oSoAAa/i. ro : + kul eyXw/x s : gongola il [ /3ao-tXea] prm regem aelam 
 
 1L I 16 Kat]> It I TOv]>ro TOV ^ao-tAea]>3 | 17 Kai]>iL ] Tov]>ro ! 17/18 tov 
 ^ao-iAea]>S 18 Sa^etp Krs] Saj3r]p o 19 K;atJ>l!. Toi' yiSao-t Xea] > S 20 y€cr(ret,p 
 
 a^r)p ufi: a^ip Z 18-22 ordo oppidorum Klptr] yeo-etp. ep/Aa. apaS. 8a/?tp 
 
 u: omn inserunt /3ai6r]X post apaS \ 18 8ay3etp] SajStp ulf: 8ta/8tp ptiz , 
 *^ 
 
 cyAwv 0AS ! 16, 17, 19 KUL TOv]>omn | 20 yeo-o-etp] aaet B : ruet h : gisl <E : 
 
 The K recenpion is thus true to its canon in reading in the present passage 
 oSoAAa/A. On the basis of the kolvt} reading and its casual correction in 
 Origan the two names are identified in 58™ on 10:37 : 77 oSoAAap, AeycTat ^ai 
 atyAap.. There remains the passage 15:39 where again the kolvt] reading 
 seemed hopelessly corrupt to Origen who therefore introduced the Hebrew 
 form; he was not followed by the other recension. The introduction of 
 oSoAAap, in 12:12 on the part of the K texts necessitated its excision from 
 vs. 15; naturally those texts which read in the former place atAup. or eyAwv 
 kept oSoXXafjL in the latter. The total XXIX of 6 (BheiL) remained un- 
 affected in ro by the addition of (iaiOrfX in vs. 16 in accordance with 1^™. 
 In UF, the retention of oSoAAap. by the side of aiyAwp. together with the 
 addition of fiaiOqX and the duplication of vs. 226 (to KoSixav comp. KOfji/xav 
 rolL is prefixed the Hexaplar form uKovajx) increases the number by three; 
 hence A/?' u, for which f faultily have t^' (comp., however, 24:12 all texts 
 except AS which read livo with 1i?'" and h which has tuenty-ynne!). Origen 
 naturally counted XXXI with %]""; though the representatives of his recen- 
 sion are not in agreement with one another in vss. 186. IQo. 20a, if we 
 consult A® we may be reasonably certain that Origen wrote Aeo-apwi'. /xaSojv, 
 ao-wp. (rap,ptov /juipwv. A0 both count XXIX, i.e. they reproduce the Kotv?; 
 reading, though A introduces a supernumerarj' (f>aaya after aa/xpan', and © 
 inserts (SaiO-qX and Xeirapw (read Aeo-apw) and treats fmpptL in 20a as a 
 separate locality. 1i?s apparently wrote XXIX; the number was reduced 
 by the omission of jiaiO-qX and the contraction of vs. 18 (where ?&s omitted 
 the second ",b « ; "j1"l'b was then correctly understood by the translator 
 after the analogy of ^'Z^Zt 226, -^t; PS:': 23r;, b"b;.b— thus W read for 
 br^br.b l^?™ — 236: © wrote £<^£k (or a</>e/<) ti;; o-aptov; the corruptions in 
 BliClirouF may be readily explained: B, aside from the change of e to o, 
 omitted one <t by haplography; in its archetype aapwv was written aapd, 
 
The K Text of Joshua 41 
 
 K 1666 20 yecraeip'' ' ^*Kai /Sacri,- 14 XII 
 
 Xea epfia- Kat /Sa- 
 
 aiXea apaS'' • ^""^KaL ySa- 15a 
 
 aiXea Xop-va- ^^' Kat /3a~ 16 
 
 aiXea ixaKi]ha- 
 
 K] yea€tp rs: yearfp o: ya^etp IL \ Kat]>?l | 20/21 y8ao-iAea]>s | 21 epfw. KrlL] 
 epfMiv ro I Kat]>0 3L | 21/22 ;Sao-tXea]>S | 22 apaS Kr] aapaS H | /<aiJ>rolL | 
 22/23 j8ao-t\€a]>S I 23 Ao/Ava K] X.ofii'a ro: Aeyuva iL : + jSacrtAcu oSoAAa 3L I 
 Kaij>rolL I 23/24 |Sa(7iA£a]>s | 24 pxiKrfia Krs] puKiha o: taageda 3L 
 
 20 yeo-o-ei/o] yeo-tp uiz : yaLO-rip f | 22 apaS] apaSi U ] 23 Xoftva \ inter Xo/3va et 
 fjMKrjSa inserunt o8oAAa/u, (oSoAa/x f) 
 
 yaSep A0AGS [ Ka6]>0mn I 21 cp/Au] ep/xa^ Bhtit | Kai]>omn I 22 apuS] atpa^ 
 ySacriAea apa^ B : atpae /3. apadi h : upa^ € : aSep A® AGS Kui]>omn 23 
 Aop,va] Aep,vtt at : Xtfiva B0AGS : Ae/3p.va A : + (8. ohoXXap. AGS : + /3. 
 o8. /8. |8at^77A © I Kat]>omn ! 24 /xuKTjSa A0AGS] T?AaS B : uT^AaS h : r?8ax Ot 
 
 the sign of abbreviation was then overlooked; on the other hand, the initial 
 K of the following Kai — the archetype apparently read Kai fiacnXca — was 
 dittographed; h has crap(D$, as frequently with oj; in rouF the r of rr/s 
 became y, and in ro the initial a was lost through haplography; in both the 
 K of a(l>€K became y pronounced v before the following y, hence the v of uf; 
 a(f)€eK(Tappov'i IL shows a dittographed t, ttjs is ignored, p doubled, w rounded 
 to ov, and d (misread a) as in h); on the other hand, the omission of 19a 
 (llT^ a mere variant of "."IS^i'^ 20a; see above on 161?>, 10) was offset by 
 the breaking up of 20a into two (M^ read "pS^'^ ~^b'2 ]^^'2Z "p'Z) [ 
 17 UF stand with their a^r?p alone '! 18-22 u stands alone with its order f: 
 20 Correct raet h to yaet and that (comp. B and Ot) to yao-ei = yao-ctp comp. 
 ya^etp IL and ye(o-)o-etp K texts. In all probability, <& wrote ya8rjp = ^~ji for 
 113 S?"" reproduced in Origen (and A©) 'j 21 epp,a^ of the B texts with 
 archaic fem. ending pl^ !l 22 Bh clearly represent a doublet, which is proved 
 not only by the omission of the first in ®, but principally by the fact that 
 the count of XXIX is not affected, atpad (corrupted in h to atpae) = epa8 
 (e for — ) and apa^ (corrupted in h to apa^t)=apaS are clearly parallels; 
 perhaps the former is genuine 'I aapaS IL with a dittographed after /SaaiXea \\ 
 aSep Origen quite unUkely, unless M^ read "il •; ; it may have arisen through 
 assimilation to yaSep jl 23 On Ae^Sva and variants see above on 161a, 2 || 
 Through the insertion of ^aiO-qX in the wrong place, the order in vss. 15 f is 
 shifted in uf. 0, not A, introduces (SaiOrjk in front of puK-qSa [ 24 © wrote 
 
42 
 
 The American Journal of Semitic Languages 
 
 K 167o 
 
 ^Kai TOt<; rjixtaeai 
 (f)v\r]'i iiavacrarj 
 eScoKev /jLcovarj'i 
 ev Ti] ^aaav Kai 
 5 T0i9 rj/jit(T€(nv e- 
 ScoKev (?• /xera 
 
 TWV a8€\(f)(OV 
 
 avTcov ev rco ire- 
 
 pav rov lophavov 
 
 10 irapa OdXacrcrav Kai 
 
 7 XXII 
 
 eU 
 
 IL 
 
 167a 1 f r I tois rj/JiLcrea-i Kr] tw -qixuru 
 viwv S fj-avaaa-r) Krs] fJMwaa-crr] o5L 3 cSmkcv Ks] 
 
 2 (^vXr?? KrolL] + 
 tSoJ/ce ro ' ix(ovcrr]<; Ks 
 IL] fiu)ar)<; r: i? o | 4 ev rr? Kro 31] ttjv S 4-6 kul — is Krs3l]>0 , 5 rots 
 Tjfjiicrecnv Kxs] tco -qyncTU IL 8-10 ev — 9aXa(T(jav &s3L]>o 11/12 a:r€o-T€tAev 
 
 ul(p)tF 167o 1-4 Kttt — jSa(7av]>F (sed (^vXtjs frnvatrarj f SUperscr) 1 r)ixL(Teai 
 
 BffihAeAS 167a 1 1[A0 tois rj/xLaecrL ©A] rots r)fJ.Lcrei A : tco rjfXLcreL B : rw 77/u.to-i) 
 
 h I 3 fjLOivarj'i B rell] Zs A ; 4 rr;] sup ras 3 circ litt A*' j ^aauv <£A05] 
 j8ao-av(e)tTt8i BhA 5 TOts r]fJ.L(Te(nv 0A] Tots -qiMLcrLV A : toj -qfjiiau B : tw 
 r?/xto-v h ; 8/9 ev tw Trepav tov lopSavov Bb<£0] irapa rov lopSavrjv A : > AS | 
 
 yaa/cTjSa^: fxu was lost after ^a (as ^ao-iAea was WTitten compendiously), k was 
 lost through haplography in another ancestor which omitted ^Sao-tXea and 
 read in its source k^ ( = Kai) K-qSad: what remained became 77X08 (spirantic 8 
 in B) and, with a of fiaaiXea dittographed, ar/AaS in h; on the other hand, 
 r)8a6 was misread (^ for A=8=^) as rjSax in <£. 
 
 167a 1-4 Omission through homoioarcton or condensation in f (but 
 note the trace in f superscr); a similar condensation in (see the variants 
 3, 4-6, 8-10) which inconsistently retains ev T17 fiaaav 1 The plural all 
 except BhlLu; Tj/xto-et A probably an error, comp. tj/iio-iv A in 1. 5 which is 
 certainly an error; hu refrain from dechning; similarly 1. 5 ![ 3 is A is an 
 error as it is in o, though there the error is coupled with condensation || 
 4 Bh followed by A Grecize the name; the K recension and Origen (the 
 latter followed by A©) have the Hebrew form 8-10 The K texts as well as 
 the B recension present the full Hebrew text; there is.no reason to assume 
 that Origen had anything different; 5 (followed by A, but not by 0) omits 
 the first part, A the second (hence vapa tov lopSavryv for ev tw Trepav tov 
 lophavov) , 11/12 The form minus the e^ is pecuhar to Kjo !; 12, 13 o con- 
 
The K Text of Joshua 43 
 
 K 167a i-jVLKa airearei- XXII 
 
 Xev avTOvf t? ei<i 
 TOV<i oiKOVi av- 
 Tcov ijvXoyi]- 
 15 cr€v avTOv^ ''Xe- 8 
 
 <ycov ev y^prj^a- 
 
 K] aTreo-TtXev r : aTreoretAe o : e^aTrcorttAev s: dimisit It | 12 avTovs Krs1L]>0 
 1 13 otKOvs KrslL]>o I 14 r^vAoyr;- K] evXoyr]- R | 16/17 tv] CUm iL -^pejMKTtv 
 
 Ipt] r7)U,ton) U I 5 rjixicrca-iv ] r/jLtio-v U ] 10 f | 11 c^aTreo-TeiXev ultF | 14 rjvXoyri-] 
 
 10 Trapa ^aAao-crav B reU] Kara SahxiJiTav h : >A ] If B^-lhA© [ 11/12 
 e^aTTCO-TciAev omn | 14/15 T;vAoy77(Tev] Kut euAoyr/o-ev omn i 15/16 Aeywv A®] 
 
 denses 14 The omission of kui in KruIL makes better Greek \ The temporal 
 augment with tv- onlj^ in K, see Helbing, 75 ' 15 ff. In l?s vs. 8 apparently 
 
 read: nn'i rc2i ii<- 2^ Hzp'^i Dn-bn^ b>5 ^zz D-z^ D-c::-^ 
 Q-^rs D3? Q'r;"n\^ bbi^ ipb- nn^r; nv:bi"i (p"it:i). On n':;r:i 
 
 which I have placed in parentheses see on 11. 22/23. The principal deviation 
 from ?^™ consists in the reading 12- (minus the vowel letter) which taken 
 as a perfect (121*) entrained the pointing ipb" or ipb~ and the change of 
 the suffixes from the second to third person as well as the excision of ^"IS" 
 1"2Xb □"■'bs • A less important difference was the dropping of the prepo- 
 sition in front of nip - and the following nouns which caused the translator 
 to place the caesura at nri'bnX • Such is the text and exegesis under- 
 lying Bh. A crude approachment to li?"" constitutes the introduction at the 
 head in <£ of Kai u-n-e. Trpos avrovs, the rest remaining as it is in Bh. Not less 
 mechanical was Origen's procedure who left the text of the kolvt] essentially 
 intact except that he inserted after the first xai the words et7r£ Trpo? avTov<; 
 Aeywv (Lagarde follows Maes in placing Trpos avrov; alone sub ast; his Syriac 
 MS reads: j^] i-= ^.c^Zsli ^j^lo •)»(•; neither is correct; for if we follow 
 the lead of A© which retain Aeywv and omit km we should have to place Kat 
 ciTTc Trpos avTovs sub ast; if, on the other hand, B is our guide then cittc Trpos 
 avTov; Aeywv should be put sub ast; the decision rests with the determination 
 of the exact relation of A© to Origen into which question I am not in a 
 position to go beneath the surface at the present writing) ; if he at all con- 
 nected any sense with the text thus estabhshed (and certainly A© must have 
 wrested some sort of meaning from the text as read by them), he took as 
 the subject of the two verbs not the half-tribe of Manasseh, but Reuben 
 and Gad (the 'presumable subject of uropevOrjaav in vs. 6). Accordingly, in 
 
44 The American Journal of Semitic Languages 
 
 K 167a aiv ttoWoi^; ava- XXII 
 
 \v€Tai et? TOf? 
 
 OLKOV<; VfJiCOV 
 
 20 Kai ev KTrjveal 
 
 7ro\Xoi<? a-(f)o8pa- 
 Kai apjvpiov Kai 
 '■^pvcriov KaL ai- 
 Srjpov Kat, -^^aXKO' 
 
 Kr] -^prjfxxKTL s: ;(ptj(xao-t O* j 17 TToAAots Krs] ttoXAis o: ttoAAt;? o^ 18 -Xverai 
 Ko] -Av€Te rs I 17/18 amAi-eTe Kr] ite il i 20 ev KTTjvecrtv K] ex' KT-qveai r: 
 KTTjvr? iL I 21 TToXAots Kr] TToXXa IL 22 Kai Kr]>1L I 24 Kat xaA-Kov KR]>iL 
 
 e.vXoyq- : pmi kui ItF | 20 KT-qvcal ] KT-qixxj.cn U | 22- 
 
 Kai Bh : prm Kat uirt -n-po^ avrov^ CES | 17/18 avaXverai] aivqXOocTav BAA : 
 aTvqXBov : tiarjXdov h: \itauu © : i^]] S ! 19 v[X(dv S] avrwv B rell 20/21 
 ev KTrfveal TToAAot? <£] Kat kxt^vt? TroAAa B rell ' 21 a4>o8pa\>h. 22/23 Kai 
 (TiS-qpov Kat ;(aAKo]>-^G£AS : Kat aiBrjpov Bh : >A0 : SUb •)»(• S 
 
 dismissing Manasseh, Joshua informs them that Reuben and Gad were gone 
 aheady and that it therefore was now their part to go likewise. Tliis bit of 
 harmonistic exegesis is on a line with that of Rashi who naturally was bound 
 by the received text to introduce a minor modification. The K texts which 
 \\dth A0 retain Aeywv go a step further in assimilating the text to 1^", though 
 they diverge in details: Kruf introduce the imperative and the second 
 person of the pronoun in the first half of the verse {arnXvere characteristic of 
 this recension; it certainly did not come from a' who wrote ^zlbtx according 
 to 5"=), while they leave the remainder substantially the same as in B (except 
 that the preposition is restored in front of r'.p'Z ; ufi prefix Kat in front of 
 SietAovTo so as exphcitly to dissociate the second half from the first; z left 
 out Kat as it so often does) ; 3L, on the other hand, goes on with the impera- 
 tive and the second person of the pronoun in the second half of the verse as 
 well, but introduces in addition the Kotvr? form at the end in the reading of 
 ufi II 17/18 ite 3L does not appear to reproduce avaAvere but probably aireX- 
 Oere \\ 19 ^~-^.? S is probably an error for ^=-n.'.i^7 '; 20 KTr^paai u seems to 
 have preserved the original Greek, though etjonologically the Hebrew might 
 be rendered KT-qv-q S 22/23 places Kat ^^oXkov Kai aih-qpov sub ast; this 
 accords well enough with A0 which omit the entire phrase; but Bh have at 
 least Kai (Tih-qpov which reading is shared by iL; the other K texts go with 
 Origen 'i 22 ff. z condenses 
 
The K Text of Joshua 45 
 
 K 1676 Kai ifia\^rtaijLov\ XXII 
 
 TTOXVV 8\^L€CX0V- 1 
 
 TO* Traaalv j-qv 1 
 Trpovo/jilrjv t(ov] 
 5 e')(6p(ov [auTfoyl 
 
 (^(ov avlrcov :] 
 ^Kai e'J^op^ev0^]ad^ 9 
 
 OL ViOL polv^TjvA 
 10 KaL 01 viol I 7aS'l 
 /cat TO 7;/irt(TU </)y-l 
 X?j9 I'tcoj' [|Jiava(T-^ 
 cny airo rlwv ui-l 
 (t)v lrf)C evlaiiXd)^ 
 
 1676 2 TToXvv Ko] TToAAw rs: + o-cf>o8pa s | 3/4 8 leiAovJro Kr] StrjXovro 
 (per compendium) o: BiuXavro s: dividetis 31 | 3/4 Trao-a'v t>jv] 7rpovo/A[T/i'J K] 
 
 TVV TTpovofirjv Traaav 1". T-qv Trpovofju-qv (tt/oovo/xiv O*) iraaav o: T-qv Trpovofxrjv s: de 
 praeda 3L | 5 [aurtov] Kr] v/xtav IL | 7 av[Twv] Kr] vfx.wv 3L : + Kat StetAovro tt/v 
 TTpovo/x-qv fJiCTa Tcov a8eA(^(DV auTwv 3t | 8 ^ r | 9, 10 oi]>0 j 11 rw r | 12 vlmv 
 Kl-sl/j>0 I 12/13 [puava(r\a-q Kr] pxivvaar) H | 14 ev K] €k rIL | [crr^Atu] Kr] 
 
 1676 2 Ktti — TToXvv (o-(f>o8pa) ]>z I 2 ttoAw] + a(f)oBpa \ 2/3 
 SieiAovro] prm Kat ufi | 3/4 Traaav r-qv Trpovofxrjv]^^ \ 6/7] >iz | 8 If ul | 9 
 pov^LV It : pov^(e)t/A uf j 9-13 01 — /xavaaar)] ovtol z j 14 ev i] ck rell | 16 Try] 
 
 1676 2 TToXvv] + acf>o8pa <tA®AS> I 2/3 SteiAovro h] StetAavTo B rell 1 3 
 7ra(rav]>omn 5 avTwv €A0A : sub -^^ ^ : > Bh I 8 ^ liA© \ kul] prm kui 
 airea-Tpeijjav <&A et Sub •>(• S | 11 rjfxiaeL h \ 12 i;twv B]>h<i!tA©AS | 14 ev 
 
 1676 2 acf)o8pa omitted by BhKrolL was apparently missing in <S || 
 2/3 SuiXavTo is the vulgar form; Kro as well as h have the classical aorist || 
 3 iraaav which is wanting in |l?™ only in KrouF |i 5 auTwv was omitted by <S, 
 the article as so often doing service for the pronoun || 6/7 iz condense || 
 7 Origen alone added Kat aTreaTpexj/av sub ast; from liim it penetrated into C 
 li 9-13 z condenses \\ 9, 10 o omits the article as elsewhere often || 12 uiwv 
 B and the K texts except o which merely condenses, not in S?™ , 14 ev 6 
 probably read nbc^, a shortened relative clause ' arjXwfx hs1L = o-7?Awv 
 comp. jLtayeSStov for pAiytBSw (comp. ^zb^'^uj and Lagarde, Obersicht, 187) |! 
 
46 The American Journal of Semitic Languages 
 
 K 1676 15 e« 77^9 -^^alvaav^ XXII 
 
 aireXdeiv [et? T77] 
 7aXaa8' e[t9 7^yj 
 Karacf^e [ o-e&)9 J 
 avrcov ^rjv Ka-^ 
 
 20 T€KXrjpO [ VOfJLT]- ] 
 
 Cray ei/ at>[T?; St-] 
 a 7rpo<TTa[7/LtaTO<?l 
 ^i) €1/ %ei[/3i /iwfcrr/*] 
 168a ['"/cat r;X^]oi^ €i<; ya- 10 
 
 [XiXa]^^ Tou lopBa- 
 Ivov 7] ] ecTTLV ev 
 [77; '^a]vaav Kai 
 5 [&)«o8o]/ir;o-ai/ Oi u- 
 
 (TtAw o: (TtAwyu, s: o-t^Aw/a 1L j 17 yaAoaS Kro] prm tov sIL ; 19/21 [/<aJTe- 
 kXt/po^vo/xtjV'**' K] f.K\-qpovofx.T}(Tav rs: cKXT^povo/xttrav o | 23 x^V Kr] manus IL 
 I fiuyar) TO 
 
 168a 1/2 ya^XtAa]^ K] xa-^tAa^ r: yaXiXaS os: ^ah7ea it | 4 ^ r | 5-9 
 01 — juuxvao-o-77]>S I 6, 7 pov/3r)v, yaS Kro]-^3L | 6 oi]>o j 7 tw r j 8 <f>vXr)'5 K?t] 
 
 yr;v i 19-23 T^v — /AtuDO-?;] > z 19/20 (.Kky^povofJiiqiTav 
 
 168a 1 1[ 1 i rjX.Ooaav , 4-23 r; — io/3Savou]>Z | 6, 7 povfitjv, yaS]--^ | 
 
 BhOJAS] €K A© ; ariXwfx h | 15 ck yr}<i dtA®] ev yr? BhAS ; 16 t>} B] yrjv 
 h(£"^AAS : +y^v ; 17 yaXoaS] prm tov | 17/18 yr/v Karacrxecrews] tt/v 
 KaTa(r^e(TLV ^ \ 19/20 f.KXr]povoixiqaav omn 21 ev avTifj\ avrrjv B rell :!>A 
 
 168a 1 •; A0 riXdov B rell] r)\6oaav AA 1/2 yaXtXa^j yaXiXoid A0A 
 (S ZN.N^) : yaXyaXa B : yaXaaS he j 4 •[ h A | 6, 7 povyS^^v, ya8 
 
 15 <@ manifestly wrote ev yr); ck yrjs is an inner-Greek variant (the stages 
 are ey yrj, ck y?^, ck yr;?) ij 16 yr;v was written by <5 and then replaced by 
 TTjv; or <@ wrote ttjv yr;v, yr;v then dropped out after rr/v || 19-23 z condenses || 
 19/20 The compound only in K !| 21 ev avrrj the K recension in accordance 
 with IS""; A omits the 'a' id as superfluous in Greek 
 
 168a 1 The vulgar form in ufAA !j 1/2 nib"'br> 1^™ is reproduced 
 exactly in A0A (but ^N*\^ S); the singular of the K texts stamps it 
 visibly as the name of a locaUty; in Bh<£lL the name is corrupted (assimi- 
 lated to other names: Gilgal, Gilead, GaUlee; the last not a bad guess). 
 
The K Text of Joshua 47 
 
 K 168a [lot povj^rjv Kai oi XXII 
 
 \vLOL 7 |aS' Kat ro 
 [r)fiL(T}v (f)vX'r]<; fia- 
 Ivacrcr^r]' e«ei /3&)- 
 
 10 \/jiOV eJTTt TOV LOp- 
 
 [ Savory ^(Ofiov 
 [ jie'ya^v rco iSeiv 
 [^^KaL r]^KOvaav ol v- 
 
 I LOl IrjX' ] \€JOVTCO- 
 
 15 [v L8ov'^a)Ko8ofii]ad 
 
 lot vto^c pov^-qv Kat 
 
 I ot vco^L 7a8' KUL ro 
 
 [rjfjiicr^v (f)v\r]'i fxa- 
 
 [i^acrcrjT; ^(Ofiou e- 
 20 \(f) opc^cov tt;? %a- 
 
 11 
 
 + vLwvro I 8/9 fxavvaarj 1L | 11 /Swfjiov Kslt]>0 | 12 TwtSeivKr] tov iSetv s: 
 in conspedu domini 31 : >o | 13 oi]>o \ 14/15 Xeyovrwv Ksr^] Xeywvrwv r* | 
 14-1686, 1 AeyovTwv— I^A]>0 | 16, 17 pov^-qv, yuS Krs]^iL ! 17 rw r | 18 
 <j>vXr)s] + rtcuv S ! 18/19 frnvvacrrj IL | 19/20 e',<^ ] Ks] ctt r 1 20 tt?? K] yrj? rs 
 
 pOv/?tV Iti: pOv(3{e)llX Uf I 9-11 y8cO;U,OV — 60p8aVOD]> 1 12 TO)] TOV I 13 H 1 I 15 
 
 wKoSofXTjaafxev U | 16, 17 pov/^Tjv, yaS]^ 1 pov/Siv Iti : pov/3{e)ifi ui | 20 rr/s] 
 
 A0AS] ^ 11 Tw] TOV omn: prm em B (>B=''') | 13 "^ A | 
 
 14/15 AeyovT(uvl>e \ 15 t8ov>Ti <B 16, 17 pov;8r?v, yaS AQASj-Bh® j 18 
 rifJii<T€L B*hA I 19/20 t<j) opiwv Tijs] CTTi Tw opLwv yr/s B* : e<^ optwv y7;s B'' ^"*"' 
 
 None of the recensions followed a' in treating the word as a common noun. 
 Observe the shght corruptions in r (x for spirantic y) and os (8 for spirantic 
 0) !i 4-23 The omission in z may be due to homoioteleuton; but probably at 
 the same time it serves the purpose of condensation H 5-9 s condenses || 
 6, 7 The Hebrew order in Kro and in Origen's recension with its dependents; 
 so also 16/17 and 169a, 5-7 |1 9-11 The omission in ufi due to homoio- 
 teleuton !j 12 Inner-Greek variants ![ o condenses Ij 3L paraphrastic ? !i 14 ff. 
 In o the omission which is due to homoioteleuton serves at the same time 
 the purpose of condensation |1 18 mwv s an addition !| 20 optwv of the three 
 recensions (only h diverges) goes back to bin3 1^^ in the place of bl'^ l^" il 
 
48 The American Journal of Semitic Languages 
 
 K 168a [i/aai^] ctti tov ya- XXII 
 
 [A.tX,a]^' TOV lop- 
 ^Savov a^TTo ^epov<; 
 1686 Tcov vicov iriX- 
 
 '" Kat avvi]6poia6r)- 12 
 
 (Tav 01 VIOL h]X'' ird- 
 re? et? crrjXw axr- 
 5 re ava/3rjvai Kat 
 €K7ro\€/xrjcraL 
 
 avTOv^' ^'^Kai airecr- 13 
 
 reiKav ol viol h'X'' 
 7r/9o<? rov^ viov<i 
 10 pov^rjv Kat TT/oo? 
 rov<; VL0v<i 'yah'' • 
 
 3L j 21/22 ya[XLXa]d Kr il] yaAiAaS s j 23 [aJTro fiepov^ K] cttl /xepou? rs: in 
 parte IL 
 
 1686 2 "y r : a-vv-qOpurdrf' O | 3/4 ot mot iryA Travres Kr] Travres ot mot tj^A 
 11 : TTuvre? o I 4 ets Kl'o] ev S j 4 o-r?Aw Kr] (TtAw o : ar]X<x)fi slL [ 4/5 ware 
 Ks] (oo-rat o: wre r 5 ava^yjvai Kro] avafiuvai S ! 8 ot SUperscr o | 10/11 pov- 
 
 yr)<: | 23 airo] evi 
 
 1686 2 l[]>ul I ; 4 as] ev i | 7 If 1 | 8-14 ot — yaAaaS] Trpos auTous iz 
 
 eA©AS : €vyr)'h \ 21/22 tov yaAiAa^]> A : yaAiAa^] 2> N . N ^^ : ygAtAtu^ A© : 
 yaAoaS Bll(i£ 23 airo pcpovs] £V rw Trepav omn 
 
 1686 1 rwv]>omn | 2 ^BhA© | /cat] prm xat rjKova-av ot Dtoi t^A €A et sub 
 •)i(* ^ 3/4 ot vtot IrjX Travres] -^ omn | 4 ets] ev h [ arjXMfi h j 5 avafirjvat 
 
 Kat] ava(3r]vaL AS : ava/Savras A : ava/Savres B rell | 6/7 eKTroXep-qaaL avTOVi] 
 
 Tr)<; K is an error for y^ys Ij 21/22 See above on 11. 1/2 II 21-23 V:^^ z^^.N^ 
 
 S = ev Tw yaAtAa^ evrt COmp. 15. 18. 64. 128 !| 23 aTro (or em) pepov^ all the K 
 
 texts; comp. /Acpos = "'23'" Exod. 32:15 
 
 1686 1 Origen's recension alone (thence into <K) added sub ast Kat 
 r^Kouo-av 01 mot t^A; either the first three words of vs. 12 were missing in l^^, 
 or were omitted by the translator, the clause being merely resumptive of 
 the identical clause at the head of vs. 11; comp. the analogous case 10:41 
 (161a, 18/19) l| 3/4 o condenses |) None of the recensions express my \\ 
 5/6 Note the paratactic construction in the K recension; the infinitive was 
 written also by Origen, but he subordinated the second infinitive thereto 
 
The K Text of Joshua 49 
 
 K 1686 Kai 7rpo<; to ijfxiav XXII 
 
 (pvXij'i fxavaaar}' 
 et? T7;i/ <yaXaaS' to 
 15 (f)LV€€<;- viov e\e- 
 a^ap' Tov L€p€co<; 
 
 ^* Kai BeKa av8pa<; 14 
 
 T(OV ap'x_ovTcov 
 
 TOiV fl€T aVTOV 
 
 20 ap')(^(ov eh airo oi- 
 Kov TTaTpias airo 
 iraawv twv (fyvXco 
 IrX' • ap^ovT€<i oiKM 
 
 fifjv — r60tis]>0 9-13 Tovi — nxLvaaarj] avTovi S | 10/11 Trpos tovs movs]>^ 
 I 13 ^I'Ar/s] + vtwv V I fjxiwaarj 'i^ \ 14 to KIL] -(- re R ! 15 (^tves 5L | 17 8eKa] 
 I TO^ I 19 TiDV ]>r 19/20 [j.£T avTOv ap^wv eis] ap^ovra eva fttT auTwv ?L ] 21 
 Trarptas] prm et IL | 20/21 airo olkov 7raTpias]>S 23 IrjX] prm vlmv ^ oiKwv] 
 >0 
 
 pov^Lv It: pou;8(e)t)U, uf I 13 (f>vXr]s Itf] + vlmv U I 14 TTjv] yr/v | tov] + re | 16 
 -a^apov i: + vtoi; aapojv lepews U*] api^iepetos U™ltF 19 Tiov]^ \ 23 ir^X] prm 
 
 VLO)V t 
 
 ^A I 7 ^ A© I 12 TifxiaeL hA I to] tovs wous B | 14 tyjv] yrjv BhCAOS : tyjv 
 yrjV A i to h] + tc B rell i 16 -a^ap] + vtov aapwv B. rell: + vlov aapwv h: 
 sub — S I tepew? h(£AS] apxtepews BA® | 17 av8pas]>omn 19 twv A]> 
 B rell (post apypvTwv ■/■ in 0j 20 apy^wv] prm Kai <£^'' A ; 21 TraTpias] + avTwv 
 <t \ 22 Twv A0A I 23 ap^ovTcsJ prm avSpes ®AS ] otKw] otKov h 
 
 (so at least 5 and A; contrast ©A which follow the B texts) Ij 8-14 iz 
 condense 9-13 s condenses Ij 10/11 3L condenses \ 12, 13 "the sons/' "of 
 the sons/' Bru, not in |l?" 14 yr/v or r-qv y-qv was apparently written by <@ |1 
 T€ is a Greek embelhshment -^vith which the translator maj' be credited !| 
 16 The KOLVT] adcUtion which may go back to "TIS "p 1^^ and which Origen 
 placed sub obelo was excised by the K recension (and re-introduced in uf) Ij 
 (5 apparently wrote ap^iepews (B, followed by A©, also u^ltr) wliich Origen 
 and the K recension corrected into tepews (so also h) i| 17 avSpa? peculiar to 
 the K recension 19 twv should be deleted ' 20 There does not seem to be 
 any good reason for the conjunction 20/21 Omission through homoiote- 
 leuton in s 23 mwv, as so frequently, an idle addition , avSpes (<£AS) goes 
 back to Origen = D"'il':K i^"" 
 
50 'The American Journal of Semitic Languages 
 
 K 169a irarpioiv etal XXII 
 
 'X^tXiap'^^^oL IrjX' : 
 '"Kat Trapeyevov- 15 
 
 TO 7rp0<i TOV<i V- 
 5 LOV<i pOv/SrjV KUL 
 
 7rp0<i TOV^ VtOVi 
 
 yaS^ • Kat 7r/90? to 
 
 rjfMtav (f)v\7]^ V- 
 
 i(ov fxavaaarj • 
 10 ei? 'yi]v yaXaaS' 
 
 Kac e\aXr]crav 
 
 irpo^ avTOv<; Xe- 
 
 yovTe^- ^''Tahe 16 
 
 Xeyei rj avvayw- 
 15 777 kv iraaa • tl<; 
 
 T] TrXrf/xixeXeLa 
 
 avTT] ' -qv eirXrifJi- 
 
 fX€Xi]cr€TaL evd- 
 
 TL Ou h]X' • airocTTpa- 
 
 169a 1 [7raT/3twv] ] TrarptKwv 3L ! et(rt S | 3 •[ r | 4-12 Tors — 7rpos]>0 | 
 5/7 pov(3r]v, yaSJ ^- 3L , 4-10 7r/30S — yaAaa8|>S [ 8/9 vtwv]>lL i 9 fxxivvaar] 
 IL j 10 yrjv^ Tr)v 3L ] 13 •[ r 14 Xeyr] O ; 14/15 7] trvvaywyrj kv iraaa Kl'o] Trao-a 
 (TvvayiDyr] kv S?L | 16 7rAr;/x/i,eAeta Ks] TrATj/A/xeAta ro j 18 -fJLeXrja-are VO^ 
 
 169a 3 ^ U i 4-11 irpos — eAaAr/<rav]>iz ' 5/7 pov(3rjv, yaS\^ ! 6 >f | 
 pov/3iv It] povl3{€)ifJi uf I 14/15 r; avvaywyr) kv nacra]^^ ; 14 77] >Z [ 18 
 -fXiX-qdaTi I 19 ^t'] prm TOD i 22/23 v/itv eavTOts 
 
 169a 1 TTttTpiw] + avTwv e (cf . a S™) ; 3 •" liA® 5, 7 povfi-qv. yaS A0]AS 
 ^Bh© I 7/8 TO Tjjuicn; li0A ] TODS r?/xto-ets BA 8/9 mwv]>omn j rjfiLcrtLh.* rjixiarv 
 h^ 10 yr7V llQAS] T77V B<£A 13 "^ hA0 j 14/15 77 o-vmywyrj iiv ira<Ta 
 
 ] v-^ omn [[7;>h]] : + ot viot ii7A sub -^SC- 5^ | 18 -fieXrjaaTe omn I 18/19 evavTi 
 
 169a 1 avTojv <£ may be an innocent addition by the translator as so 
 frequently elsewhere; but a' (according to S>^) had it, and it is found in 1?"" 'j 
 4-12, 4-11, 4-10 Various methods of condensation (o, s, iz) 6 f condenses ii 
 8/9 vL(Dv K texts (except il) not in ?^" 10 r-qv B<£A an error for yrjv l| 
 15 The addition 01 viot IrjX S) sub ast is shared by none else and is probably 
 an error (the phrase may have been introduced from vs. 12) || 18 -/xcXrjaeTac 
 

 I > > > 
 
 '. ; , , J J « , • . '5 > ■ > . J 
 
 The K Text of Joshua ' 51 
 
 K 169a 20 (f)r]vaL ai]/x€p6 XXII 
 
 airo icv oiKoSo- 
 fxrjaai auTOi<: v- 
 /Miv /Scofiov Kac 
 1696 [jeveadai vfia<i] 
 
 aTToaTarla^ a7^o^ 
 
 kv- ^' fir] fjL^iKpovj 17 
 
 v/jLiv TO I a^lap^r|-^ 
 5 fxa (f)oy\ (Op OTtl 
 ov KeKa[6apLcrfJ.€-^ 
 da air, av^TOV eft)"?] 
 T7/9 7;/xe[/3a? raf-l 
 T7;9- «:a[t €761/7^ -1 
 10 drj Tr\r]<y\^ii ev rr)^ 
 
 (ixeXrja-aTat o*)s | 19 6v] prm tov r: prm KV 3L j 21 oikoSo- K] otKwSo- o: 
 prm Kttt O I 21/22 oiKoSo/xrja-avTe'; iL ; 22/23 aurois u/xtv K] v/aiv avroi? r: v/iiv 
 €avrots S 3t: U|U,tv O 23 Kat]>lS. 
 
 1696 1/2 yeveo-^ai u/iAas aTroo-Taras Kr] aTrooraras ii/i«s yevecrOai U 2 aTro] 
 >0 ; S /xrj]r] (sed V. Robert) 3L 4 afuipn- O ! 5 ourt o | 6/7 KeKa'^^apto-/i,e]^a 
 Krs] KCKaOaptaO-qfieOa o ; 10 TrXtyr) O* {-irXrjyr) O^) 13 | -r;a-eo-^e] Krs] -qutcrdai O | 
 
 1696 1-2 yeveo-^cu v/xas aTrooraTas] aTrocrraras v/xas yevecr^at i 5 <f)oyop z \ 
 6/7 K€KKadapt(TiJL€6a (6a SUperscr) z j 15-17 Kai — a-rjfJiepov (aTro KtJ) ] >z | 
 
 A A] evavTtov B rell | ^i;] prm tov Bh® : prm kv tov A J 21 aTro] + o-rrurdev 
 <£A et sub ■><< S | 21/22 otKoSo/xTyo-avres omn | 22/23 avrois v/xiv] ^ Bh: 
 eavTois A0AS ! 23 Kai e]>B rell 
 
 1696 1-2 ytv€(j6ai vfjia<; aTroo-raras] aTTOCTTaTas vpuas yevecrOai B rell: 
 ttTTOo-raTas yeveo-^at v/xas A : + a-rj/Jiepov <£A et Sub •)jC- S 3 kv] prm tov B j ^ 
 A I 4 v;xiv lieA0A] r;/xtv BS' 6/7 K^KaOapur fi^Oa hA®] eKadapL(T6rjp.cv BA I 10 
 TrAT/yr;] prm t; A : irkrifJifJ.eXui h 1 12/13 aTroaTpacj>r)a-ea6e A©S] aTr€aTpacf>7]T£ 
 
 K, a plain error for -fxtk-qaaTai \\ 19 ILA are isolated with their plus || 
 21 oTTLcrdev was added by Origen so as to express "T!>< (the asterisked word 
 also in <£; naturally not in A©) \\ 22/23 Origen omitted v/jllv and retained 
 carrots (so also A®) because the Hebrew had only one word ' 23 kul of <£ 
 and the K texts (except 11) is not in the Hebrew 
 
 1696 2 (rr}fji€pov was added by Origen, =3'T'ri (also in (£■) [ 10 The 
 article which is found in A goes back to Origen; comp. Z2\Z~ \\ 12/13 The 
 
c « c « 
 * c c • 
 
 « « « ».' 
 
 < re' 
 
 
 52 The American Journal of Semitic Languages 
 
 K 1696 crffa7&)[777 «:£»] XXII 
 
 ^^/cai i'/Lie[i9 aTTO-l 18 
 
 crrpa^ [ 7;crecr^e ] 
 
 arjiiepov [aTTO «:{/] 
 15 /cai ecrT[at eai' a-1 
 
 7rocrT7^T[e o"7;/x€-] 
 
 /9oy /cat aruptdj 
 
 eiTi 7rav\Ta IrfK.] 
 
 Tj opyr) ealrai:] 
 20 ''^Kai i^uv e[t fltKpa^ 19 
 
 KaTa(T')(^ r e<7€&)9 ] 
 
 14 o-r7/i€jOOv]>5L [kd] Kr] + Ov vfiwv 3L I 15-19 kul earai avpiov ctti iravTa 
 IrjX rj opy-q o: /cat avpiov €7rt Traora tj^A eorat rj opy?; S | 15 e(TTatJ>3t | 17 pov] 
 + ttTTO kv V% I 19 eo-rat -q opyr) rsH | 20 ^ rs | etjr; \ 21 7;]>o | 23 vfiwv Krs] 
 >o: KV 3L 
 
 16 -7ro(TTpa(f>7]Te | 17 pov]+ ctto ki ' 19 r) opy-q eo-Tat]v^ | 20 ^ U 
 
 Bh€A i 14 ttTTo] OTTto-^ev © | 15 •[ © eav] + v/,tets ®A et sub •>(• S , 16/17 
 ar}fJi€pov (airo) in mg et sup ras A'*' (o-r?jii£pov>A*"'^) : aTro Kw omn I 17 KatJ> 
 ffih [ 19 7] opy-q eoratJ^B : eo-rat opy?; hA0A : \'\-^''> |o-nJ S 20 ^> 
 
 BhA® i 21 v/xtv rj yr; li<£A© \-q yq v/xtav B : r) y-q A5 | 23 8ia(3qT€ ] + v/xtv ^ 
 
 translator apparently wrote the aorist (whether 1^^ read QDZ w , or whether 
 the translator not understanding that the clause was interrogative took the 
 imperfect in the sense of an aorist, it is difficult to say); both recensions 
 (note, however, that A goes with B) have correctly the future tense i| 
 14 o-ino-Otv of <t may be grounded after all in Ethiopic idiom; but see above 
 on 169a, 21 15-19 In s the omission may be due to homoioteleuton, comp. 
 z; but it may just as well represent condensation, comp. o ii 15 v/jtets = Dn5^ 
 was added by Origen (also in dt) \\ 17 a-n-o kv omitted in K through error || 
 Kat of the apodosis all except h(2t | 20 Maes suggests that <@ wrote /xiapa 
 which was then corrupted into p-iKpa 21 vfiiv of the K texts also in h<£A0; 
 B has a redundant vfiwy (which perhaps represents an original vfxtv) deleted 
 by Origen ij On the other hand, S' adds vfXLv after hvajiqTf. 1. 23 l| 23 ku IL a 
 clear error which led to the omission of iiv in 1. 3 of the next column 
 
The K Text of Joshua 
 
 53 
 
 K 170a 
 
 
 ei? T'fjv yrjv tt;? 
 Ka^a^a■)(^eaew<i 
 kv' V eaTLV i] 
 aKr}vlT] kv Kac 
 
 XXII 
 
 
 5 
 
 KaraAKXr^povo- 
 firja-e^Tai ev rj- 
 [/xiy Kai aiTO kv 
 fiT] a TToararai 
 jLveAaOai' Kai 
 
 
 
 10 
 
 vfiei 9 fiTj airo- 
 (TTrjrAai Bia to 
 oiKoh ofjLTjcrat v- 
 /jLa<i ^](i)fMov e^Q) 
 Tov OAvcnaaTi)- 
 
 
 
 15 
 
 piOvA kv TOV 6v 
 
 
 170a 3 KV Kr 
 
 1>5L 1 
 
 ttrrivl erit ?t 6 -iiriaaTe rs : -uto 
 
 rarai (at corr in e) : 
 
 + avrrjv 5L | 6/7 v/xiv V \ 8 aTrooTare r [ 9 yiveaSf. 1' : ye.vr)cr6e S | 7—9 Kat /x-q awo 
 KV aTTOCTTaTat yi-vqadi. 31 j 10 v/xets KrILJ a<^ rjfxwv s: >0 ; 11 (rxTjre rs'] 
 
 170a 3 eariv] KaraaK-qvoi f.KU \ 6 -[xr)(TaT€ \ 6—12 rat — oiKoSofir)]^! | 
 7-9 Kai — yLveaOai] Kai fxr] utto kv aTTOoraTai yevrjdrjTe \ 10 Vjtteis] avo rj/Jiuiv \ 
 
 170a 1 eis] ETTt A ! 3 ou] ottov a I ecrnv] KaraaKiqvoL €ku omn [ 4 (TKTfjvr}\ 
 Kt/StoTos A j 6 -fjirjcreTe B] -/A?ycraT€ hA0A5 7-9 Kai aTro ku /at; aTroo'TaTai 
 yivecT^e cf. S] Kat ju.17 aTroo-rarai airo 6u yevqtrOe B : Kai /at; aTroo-rare arro ^u 
 yevr)6r)T€ h: Kai /xrj aTro kv aTTOcrrarai yevrjOrjTe A® : aTro kv //,?; aTroo'TaTai 
 
 yevr]dr)T€ A } 10 V/XWi B""^ superscrl-i(jjfhj ^^o ^^^^ A©AS I 11 UTTOaTTjTe 
 
 170a 3 eo-Tiv Kr(1L) against all the other texts and 1^™ !! 4 The reading 
 of A is singular (or sub-singular, comp. 121) li 6 K goes witli B in reading 
 the future !, avrrjv IL superfluous ', 7-9 Kr come nearest to S comp. A in 
 that the order of the Hebrew is strictly adhered to; with A® (comp. uf) the 
 witnesses mentioned share Ku = mri"' J^"; the essential difference between 
 these two recensions (K and Origen) and the B recension consists in the 
 name of the Deity {Ov in the latter) Ij 10 ^Dnj^ was expressed by Origen 
 
 T 
 
 only (it passed into A®, but also into suf); "M' probably read □ri>5 (hence 
 vfiei'i of the other texts), which, of course, is an inferior reading; o merely 
 condenses li 11 The addition in BhC due to the faulty reading discussed in 
 
54 The American Journal of Semitic Languages 
 
 K 170d » [r]fJL(o]v' '\vxei- 20 XXII 
 
 [Sou a^')(^ap Tov 
 ^^apa^ TrXrjfi/jLe- 
 [Xtai^] eirXrjixpLe- 
 20 rXT/treli/* airo tov 
 ^avadAeiJLaTO<; ' 
 \^Kai, eJTrt rracrav 
 ^Ti]v a^ivvaycoyrj 
 170b IrjX eyevrjdi] opyrj' 
 
 KUL 0UT09 et? jJLO- 
 
 vo<i Tjv /lit; jxovo'i 
 auTO? airedave- 
 5 ev T7] avTOv afxap- 
 
 Tia: '^ Kai aireKpt- 21 
 
 drjaav ol vlol pov- 
 
 -cTTeiTe s* I 12 oiKw8o^to-at o ' 16 v/awv s | •[ rs [ 16/17 ovK lSov R 1 i8ou]>lL I 
 19 -Xiav Kro] -Acta s: neglegens IL 
 
 1706 1 i7;A^>o 1 opyr]] -{- kv o \ 2 ovros Kr 31] owTws r: avros o ! 2/3 eis 
 /i,ovos] WWMS 3L I 4 avTos Kr] ovtos s3L : >o | 5 tt/J rt o | eauTovs j 6 ^ rs i 
 
 16/17 oi>K tSov I 18-20 TrXrffJLiJL ■ CTrXrjiXfi .]^/^i 
 
 170b 1 ti^A]>z opyr; It] prm t; uf I 2 £ts ltfi]>uz I ; 4 avros ltfi]>uz | 
 5 £v]> I avTou ltF]>U I 6 ^ 1 I pov^tvMi: povy8(e) i/i,ufz I 8 ot]>fz i otmot]>i I 
 
 A0AS] + ttTTo KV Bhe ] 16 II A ' ovx Ah* (ovk h») | 17 axap Befh rell] 
 a^ftv AS I 18 ^apa] 'azor C' j 19 -A(eVv] kU\a omn I 20 -A7;o-evJ £ sup ras 
 A"' I 23 Tr?v A0A 
 
 1706 1 eyevrfdrj] evrjOr] SUp ras B'' "' | 2/3 /tiovos Sub — S j 3 r7V A©] sub 
 emnisco S : >BA ! /xrj />tovos]>B 3/4 yuovos avros cf B] /tovos ovtos A©: 
 ouTos /Aovos A et sub — S | 5 evj > AA i aurov ©A] eavrov AB I 2/6 kui — 
 
 the last note \ 17 axav = -^r:r H!™ only AS jj 19 The MSS waver between the 
 dat. and accus. to express the inner accus. in Hebrew 
 
 1706 2-6 It is clear that the text of B is faulty; the words riv [ixj [xovo^ 
 dropped out through homoioteleuton; thus barring minor points all three 
 recensions agreed. Perhaps xb ?^™ goes back to "inS sb by the side of 
 which "inxn 1^^ was a justifiable variant \ 10 vtwv not in 'W \\ 11/12 i con- 
 
 T ■ i- 
 
 denses || 13 Afyoj/res all, not in p?'", hence sub obelo Origen [[ 14-16 Origen's 
 text which is identical with that of A© (comp. also s) was, as the obelus 
 shows, substantially the same as the current text; the differences between it 
 and B are slight (B transposes kk ta-rip and omits the last k?.- with the B 
 text goes also IL, minor differences notwithstanding); the introduction of 
 
The K Text of Joshua 55 
 
 K 1706 ^rjv Kai ol vloi 708' XXII 
 
 KUL TO rjfXLaV (f)U- 
 
 10 X?;? vKov fxavaa- 
 (Tiy Kai eXaXrjad 
 
 IrjX' Xeyoure^;- 
 
 "^0 ^9 avTO^ ear IV 22 
 
 15 k^ 6^- KUL 6^ av- 
 
 TO<i oiSe^' Kai IrjX' 
 
 avTO^ Siayvwae- 
 
 Tai- €L ev atrocna- 
 
 aeia TreTrXij/jL/xe- 
 20 XrjKafiev evav- 
 
 Ti icv (XTj pva-qraL 
 
 rjfia<; ev ravrrj : 
 '■'Kai et oiKoBo/xrjaa- 23 
 
 8 oi]>o gat iL 10 ncov Ks]>rolL | frnwaarf 3t | 13 Aeywvrcs O \ 14-16 O 6^' 
 6<i K<i ecrrtv /cat o 6<i- Ok k^ oiSev avros s: o ^s ^S ecrrti' Kat o ks kul o 6<; arro? 
 otSev IL 14 eo-T6 ro 15 o ^s 2°]>0 , 16ot8ero 16-18 /cat — Stayi'wcreTat^>il 
 19 -cna R 21 pva-qrac K] pvaerai o: pvaero s: liberet IL 22 Taurrj KH-] prm 
 tt; yjfxepa R j 20 *^ rs ! 23 (DKoSofXtjcra- R 
 
 9 (^vAtjs] prm rr;? i I 11/12 eXaXrjcrav rots ;(tXtap;)(ots] clttov arrots i 12 
 ;^iAtap;(ats U ; 20/21 evavri] evavrtov z: aTrevavri rell I 21 kv] prm rov t | 21 
 pvatTai 22 raiJTv;] prm tt; rjfiepa 
 
 auTov]>h 6 ■^ hA® 9 rjiMia-ei hA 10mwv]>omn 13 Aeyovrcs sub — S) 14- 
 16 o ^S o ^s /<? ecrrtv Kat o 6% o 6<i ks ai'Tos otSev []^o 2°]!> A | eoTiv /cat] Sub — .S | 
 o 4°] ^Aj] A0A^ : tti'Tos o 6'? ^s 6'? ai'Tos ecmv' kui o ks ks avTos otoev h : o 
 KS ai'TOs £(rrt ^s Kai ks Kat ^s d^wv ai'xo? o k? otSev ®: o 6^ 6<; eaTLV k? Kat o ^^ 
 ^s ai'TOs otSev B 17 Siayvtocrerat] yvwcrcrat omn 18/19 aTrooracrti A0 19/20 
 TreT!-Xr]fXfi.€Xi]KaiJ.€v 0] (.Trki^p.p.f.X-qcraiJif.v BhAA 21 kv] prm roi; Bh pvcrr/rat Aj 
 pvaaiTO BA0 : pvcraTw h ( e COrr ) 22 rauTT; Bh] prm T-q r]fji.epa A0AS 23 ^ > 
 
 ai'To? in the first clause distinguishes the text of KrouF from the others. 
 All the texts err exegeticaljy in that the}' look in the first clause for a con- 
 fession of faith. Properl}' rendered, the Greek should run as follows: o 6s 
 o 6k ki o 0^ o Bi Ks uvros oi8er. Certainh' 10.^ and ?^™ were identical || 
 16-18 The omission in il probablj' occurred in a Latin MS 21 ll?^ read 
 l!"""ri" which is certainly the better reading 22 K goes with Bhli; Tavr-q 
 sc. TT] ■qp.f.pa; it goes without saying that Origen supplied the words (hence 
 also in A0 and uf), but they are also found in r 
 
I 
 
4a 
 
 HOME USE 
 
 CIRCULATION DEPARTMENT 
 
 MAIN LIBRARY 
 
 This book is due on tlie last date stamped below, 
 l-month loans may be renewed by calling 642-3405. 
 6-month loans may be recharged by bringing books 
 
 to Circulation Desk. 
 Renewals and recharges may be made 4 days prior 
 
 to due date. 
 
 ALL BOOKS ARE SUBJECT TO RECALL 7 DAYS 
 
 AFTER DATE CHECKED OUT. 
 
 MAR 1.4 1975 X 
 
 ^turmibis 
 
 
 ,yr ^ ^(^-'Q 
 
 2i.MJiL 
 
 NWii5l98S 
 
 R£C Cfff Mi 1 5 '83 
 
 7, 
 
 LD21- 
 
 LD21 — A-40m-12,'74 
 (S2700I.) 
 
 General Library 
 
 University of California 
 
 Berkeley 
 
 f 
 
lU ^0/10m 
 
 ^52J95 
 
 t 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY 
 
r.i.: 
 
 p:i ,^